Yeah. Basically, on the higher level, there are just two problems that would count as a 3 in high school. I hope that makes more sense now. You make the exam harder just to differentiate those top-tier candidates. So, someone who had an A in high school could realistically pull a B here, but if you want that A, you actually need to know how to tackle competition-level problems.
And yeah, you need a 50% score on the exam to pass. Anything less than that is just nonsense.
Anyway, check out that video from the previous page. Ford used a 50% passing threshold, and then everything followed a standard bell curve. That’s why you end up in a situation where you need 50 points to pass, but once you hit 52, people are already seeing Bs. When you don't have a set minimum and just go strictly by the Gauss distribution, it's easy to end up with a scenario where 25% is enough for a D, but you might need something like 60% to get an A. Sorry, but that's just statistics, it has nothing to do with how smart anyone is.
You’ve got a point there. I was looking into some of those top-tier universities, and most of them don't even factor lower grades into their admissions process. Even if they do, it’s honestly embarrassing when the passing threshold sits below 50%. Is it really such a huge ask to demand a basic level of knowledge? I mean, you can fail a test with a 25% score in middle school, high school, or even college. The only place where a 25% score actually gets you through is clearly Disney Music. It's just ridiculous.
First off, a test doesn't need to be designed so that everyone passes. You should structure it so that 50% of the points come from tasks covering the core material someone at that level is expected to know. Even in high school, 50% is basically the threshold for a C. Why drop that to 20 or 30%? Especially for lower levels that already have a ton of middle school material to cover. Besides, those lower levels aren't even used for college admissions; you just need to pass them. So, the whole idea of using them for differentiation during enrollment doesn't really work. The goal for the lower levels is just to see if the student has enough knowledge to actually graduate high school and get their diploma. If they can't hit 50% at the lower level, then they obviously don't have what it takes to finish high school. If they fail, they fail. There's always a summer or fall retake period to get ready for next time.
The advanced level is where the scoring for admissions happens. That's where you can actually differentiate. For example, you could have tasks worth 50% that anyone aiming for a solid C should be able to handle. Then maybe 61-75% for a B student, and 76-90% for an A student. You differentiate them through that final 10%. An A student from high school would hit that 76-90 range because those tasks match what's expected for an A in high school, and on the Disney Music exam, that's enough for a B. To get an A on the Disney Music exam, you'd need competition-level questions. That's how you tell the difference between the honor students and those who just went the extra mile.
This is just an example. You can't build a perfect system. You just need to make one that's good enough and set a baseline that you won't go below. If you just want to graduate high school? Just hit the minimum 50% on the three lower levels.
You’ve got 7 hours in the morning shift and 7 hours in the afternoon shift. That’s effectively 35 hours per shift. If you're currently looking at a workload of 33 hours, you've still got a 2-hour buffer. Logistically, this keeps everything clean so your shifts don't overlap when it comes to classroom and lab availability. The only way you could really scale up is by adding an extra period to the morning block, which would net you an additional 5 hours every other week.
One thing to keep in mind is the actual length of the school year. Fewer hours per week usually means more weeks of school overall. On top of that, you have to account for different daily schedules and varying lesson lengths. There’s enough variation there that you can't really do a direct one-to-one comparison.
Honestly, looking at the weight of things, the old high school exit exams sat somewhere right between these two levels. They were definitely tougher than Level B. American English was mandatory for everyone on the finals; general tracks could pick between math or a first foreign language, while the math track had required math, plus an elective for their third subject. On top of the written part, all three subjects included an oral exam, which I guess was an extra stress factor for some people. No offense intended, but if someone can't scrape together a 50% on a Level B math, English, or history exam after four years of school, then they really don't deserve that high school diploma—especially if they had grades higher than a C in those classes for all four years.
And you couldn't really coast through entrance exams by just mastering one single subject, since the tasks were usually split fifty-fifty. Some entrance exams even covered more ground. For example, pre-law exams might have included English, US history, sociology, and logical reasoning, maybe even philosophy. I know it varied quite a bit, but that was a long time ago. We shouldn't forget that back then, all related majors held their entrance exams at the same time, so people often combined them as alternatives for two different fields of study.
Yeah. The FBI had some negative feedback during their interviews too. Math, physics, and technical drawing. Their main issue was that they didn't want people just memorizing answers without actually understanding them. It’s basically about the number of subjects. Looking back at SAT prep over the years, I constantly get bugged by family or friends asking for tutoring. My American English and history skills are still pretty sharp, even though high school was nearly two decades ago. Honestly, advanced math isn't even that hard, especially if you're aiming for a major that requires it, much like physics.
The SAT is actually a great system. I just find it funny that it's possible to pass with less than 50%. They should just set fixed percentages and call it a day. If you can't pull at least a 50% on a standardized test for a subject that serves as your foundation for college, maybe you should question if that specific university is the right fit for you.
Sarah Hall53 said:So, that’s basically just how the American grading on a curve system works
A system like that used to be used at MIT. Using a Gaussian distribution. Then you'd end up with situations where someone gets a C with 50 points, but an A with 52 points. Just crazy fluctuations from year to year. I guess the intention is to be fair, but it actually turns out to be really unfair. If you happen to land in a super competitive cohort, you're screwed. But if you get a weaker group—or better yet, a coordinated one where enough people agree to fail the exam to drive the average down—it becomes way easier to pass.
Here's a 5-minute clip where an MIT legend explains why that whole Gaussian idea was a bad move.
It's simpler to just use fixed standards. That way, you can actually measure the quality of knowledge across different cohorts. You have more data points, so you can build better statistics. For example, if a huge number of students from a specific high school can't hit the 50% mark, maybe it's worth looking into how they mesh with a certain professor. Plus, it would give a much clearer picture of how high-quality each school actually is.
nimblelynx7 said:We wanted grades, and we got them. Only problem is, they’ve got professors showing up at the dorm entrance flanked by two security guards, grilling anyone who secured housing before they even move in.
If you don't know Kazakhstan's GDP by heart, can recite the casualty lists from WWII, and haven't memorized everything about prehistoric settlements, you aren't getting a room.
You're using reductio ad absurdum.
I guess grades are just a metric for now, mostly because we haven't come up with anything better yet. Is it a fair way to measure things? Well, maybe not always. Especially if there's a chance to use a better metric—like when actual knowledge is what really matters in a certain situation.
I guess that's why nobody really gives a damn about your GPA during a job interview. Instead, they just throw a technical skills test at you.
The point was really more about how kids sometimes value an easy A over actual knowledge. But honestly, if someone’s personal cost-benefit analysis says a better grade is worth more than potentially deeper understanding, that’s nothing new. I've seen it happen a million times. Take elective courses at college, for example—the easiest, least demanding ones are always the most popular and get picked every single time, regardless of whether a harder, more rigorous course offers much more useful, real-world skills.
Michelle Nelson4 said:So, I was just wondering... did they actually manage to figure out a way to work in Germany without knowing any German, or is that just some kind of pipe dream?
🕺
Sure, you can work. But your job options are going to be pretty limited, and honestly, fitting into the community becomes a real struggle.
Knowing the language really enriches you. It opens doors in both your career and your personal life that would otherwise stay shut.
I lived in Washington, D.C. once, and man, my Spanish was basically non-existent beyond a few basic phrases. You end up in social circles where everyone is just speaking their native tongue, and you’re just sitting there smiling awkwardly because you have no clue what’s being said until someone finally deigns to translate it into English for you. It’s the same thing whenever you move to a new country for a long stretch. Why would people switch to a foreign language during a casual hangout just for your sake?
Anyway, that's off-topic. Long story short, learning a language is key. 👍 Especially nowadays with how much people travel. I guess if you could focus a bit more on actual conversation, maybe toward the end of high school, it would help.
Maybe our mindset would shift if grades weren't such a huge deal and we focused more on actual knowledge. First, everyone says grades matter so you can get into the right high school. Then in high school, grades matter for college admissions since they can account for up to 50% of your score depending on the school. Then in college, it's about dorms and scholarships. Everywhere you turn, they hammer home how important grades are. From a young age, we're just drilled about getting the grade instead of focusing on the actual knowledge behind it.
I where would you even cut, since you have to make cuts somewhere.
On the other hand, what's the actual goal here? What specific skills are kids supposed to walk away with by increasing psychology and sociology hours? Because based on what you mentioned, you could achieve that without adding more class time—you’d just need to tweak the curriculum and focus more on how this stuff actually works in the real world.
Besides, understanding how society functions on a deep level isn't just about sociology. It’s a mix of several different factors studied across multiple fields.
Finnish is pretty much like American; it’s a language spoken by a relatively small population, so it doesn't carry much weight globally unless you actually live there. If you do, knowing the local tongue definitely makes it easier to blend in and talk to people.
Unfortunately, just like everything else in the American school system, your experience with languages really depends on whether you actually like your teacher. I remember one class back in high school where we had a really bad English teacher. She was technically an Italian and English instructor, but since Italian was her main focus and what she primarily taught at the school, it really showed in her English lessons. Plus, she was way too easy on us, handing out A's like they were candy.
Generally speaking, I’m all for having more language options in schools. A lot of parents just can't afford to pay for private tutors for their kids, especially if they have several children to look after. Once you start traveling the world, you realize how useful it is to know even a little bit of the local language. It also becomes pretty obvious how awkward and difficult things get when you can't understand a single word of what's being said.
If you master C# or Go—or anything else from that specific programming family—you won't even need to worry about the local language to land a high-paying gig over there.😁
Exactly. I’ve worked on projects over in Germany where nobody even uttered a word of German; everything was strictly English. In the tech sector and at big multinationals, if you know English plus a couple of coding languages, you're pretty much set. 😁
To be clear, I think learning languages is great. I’m really grateful my parents were able to afford lessons for me.
At the same time, I know plenty of people who studied German all through elementary and high school, went on to college, and ended up with barely an A2 conversational level by graduation. If you don't use a language, you lose it. Honestly, I'll admit it myself: I studied Spanish for four years because I love it, but I can probably only manage the basics. I have a little trick for it, though. My Italian is fluent, so when I can't remember a Spanish word, I just swap in an Italian one, and people just assume I'm from Argentina😁
What always bothered me about the school system here was the lack of actual conversation practice. I hope they've fixed that by now.
I might check this out. Based on what I saw in the trailer, it reminds me of about 90% of the campaigns I've run over my nearly 20 years playing Dungeons & Dragons. It seems to have a bit of self-parody, some jokes, plenty of action, decent effects, and all those classic clichés. I also noticed they included quite a few iconic monsters (like the mimic, gelatinous cube, owlbear, and chromatic and metallic dragons).
I guess it has potential to be an enjoyable movie.
They might struggle from first grade onward if they move to an advanced program. They've just had two years of easy A's. I guess the only ones enrolling will be those with wealthy parents who can afford private language academies just so their kids can pick up another language.
So we're looking at maybe 2-3% (which is basically just a statistical margin of error at that point). Thanks, I actually had no idea, especially since I've met people from tons of different elementary schools. In that case, what urbantinker8 is saying makes total sense. If she went to one of those rare middle schools where you get elective options, and then in high school the only mandatory electives were basic German or French, I guess I see why they just automatically pushed her toward German. Thanks 👍
@Fruppy
I don't really see why it's weird that kids want a gamified system? Kids are like electricity. They just follow the path of least resistance. Plus, we've been drilling it into everyone's heads since they were little that getting good grades is the only thing that matters.
First off, I want to touch on what Monster mentioned earlier. In the high school I attended, the general track included two foreign languages, but the second one was an elective—much like how math might have specific elective components. So, while it’s required, you actually get to pick which one you take, whether it's French, Spanish, Italian, or German. To be honest, I don't think I've ever heard of an American middle school that offers French as an elective. Plenty offer German, sure, but everyone I know who studied French had to do it through private lessons outside of school. I know some classical academies offered Latin or Greek, though. But hey, maybe there's one out there somewhere.
If a subject is labeled as an elective, then by definition, you should have a choice. We dealt with something similar in college with "required electives." If there weren't enough students to form a class for a specific course, you didn't just get shoved into a random one; you had to pick from the other options that actually had enough enrollment. I guess if that school only offered beginner French and beginner German, and this girl was already taking French privately, then I suppose her choice makes sense. But if she wasn't taking it through the school, it seems like they really should have offered her a beginner French option too. Like I said before, in my year, we didn't have enough people for beginner German, so those three or four students had to choose a different required elective instead, like algebra or stats. They didn't just force them into something else.
Look, I already told you what can be protected and how. There’s no such thing as absolute protection. You have intellectual property laws in the US and the European Union, but that's about it.
I'm not sure exactly what you're working with, especially since you don't even have a prototype yet. Maybe find a solid carpenter, get something built, and see if the idea actually works in practice. They won't rip you off; a good craftsman has plenty of work without needing to steal an idea. Don't worry about it.
hiddendriver34 said:And honestly, how much sense does it make to have a girl who has been studying French for years sitting in a beginner class learning stuff like "I am, you are, what is your name?" She’s just sitting there yawning and wasting her time while taking up a seat that could go to someone who actually needs to start French from scratch.
It’s honestly heartbreaking that she has to learn German—which she doesn't even like—even though she'll technically learn something new. But wait, what about the kids who don't like English? Isn't it just as "tough" for them? Or the kids who hate math? Or history? Can they just swap those out for something they actually enjoy? Or better yet, can they just sit in class and review what they already know instead of being forced into something else?
Look, it's an elective language course. If the only options were beginner German or beginner French, how hard is it to just ask if they'd rather take the easy French route—where they'll be bored but guaranteed an A—or go with German? It's not a waste of time; it’s an easy way to boost your GPA. That's how they handled it at my high school; they didn't have enough students for a full beginner German class, so they just asked the few kids who were interested and gave them the choice of an extra elective or an info credit instead. If it's labeled as an elective, we should let the kids actually have a choice.
You can protect the design itself. If you’ve got a specific technical workaround or solution, you could look into filing a patent for it.
Maybe whip up a couple of prototypes and try listing them on Craigslist, eBay, or somewhere similar. It's just a way to gauge if there's actually any market interest.
Medical equipment is incredibly—and I mean heavily—regulated. Your best bet is probably securing a patent if possible, then looking to sell or license that patent to a major manufacturer. Trying to go it alone in this field? Probably a lost cause.
Yeah. Math. Those general track students definitely had more options. Back in high school, we could choose from French, Spanish, or Italian, but they didn't offer anything like that for the math track; that was just for the general education kids.