Eclectic

Traditional Multiple Choice exams are based on “choosing the best answer.” That is highly open to interpretation, especially if you meet a scholastic Aristotlean. Aren’t schools supposed to be scholastic? If so, they are discarding their core philosophy! The question can be defined as choosing the “right” answer, or the “most comprehensive answer.” After all, most things are true, it is just that some answers are more appropriate for the right context. Thus, the traditional Multiple Choice exam is an all-or-nothing shot. That is un-American . That is treating people like machines. Or worse - Not even machines can fully contextualize answers; such AI for a machine that can answer tests will take decades to program. Only the best of the best graduate, or more precisely, the smartest. Not the wisest or the quickest, but the most effective test taker. Now are we teaching students learning or test-taking?

The other alternative solution is to modify the grading method of the test. Exams with choices A B C D E should be given more credit per correctness. So if an question has two answers that are correct, and a third “B and C” which is the best anwer , the student should be given partial credit if they answer B or C. No technicalities are reached. The best students will always choose the best answers, and those who are average students will learn. That way, not only will people not be penalized for their answers, but they will also learn from their answers. rom history to programming, from mathematics to science (maybe except grammar, which requires absolute precision).

The Chinese are both excellent and terrible at this, and have a two thousand year tradition of stagnant test-taking, as well as a two-thousand tradition of brilliant teachers who design human-oriented tests. But this system needs to change, because modern world needs are not testing to gain political office, the global economy is testing to learn and achieve the full human purpose.

The parabolic equation can provide the framework for motion under constant acceleration. Nature can reproduce this, through any accelerating system, such as gravity. Because nature can produce it, humans can produce it as well. Realistically, any human or artist can reproduce the curves of the parabola by applying constant increasing pressure of her pen. Able to change the direction of the vector is also why we can draw a perfect circle, although in the case of the circle, the speed of the pen is more or less uniform, and the acceleration is a centripetal acceleration v squared over r, meaning that how the circle is drawn really depends on its radius.

However, the real application of the parabola is when the bounds begin from negative and end up on positive, since that provides the right context for a parabola. The recovery of business . We technically can’t always “bounce” back to recovery every time. Our greatest business losses cannot be applied with the same force upwards as the moment business hits the lowest point. Almost all true recovery is gradual. Such gradual recovery would more accurately model the non inverse parabolic function, and proper downsizing of the company (cutting jobs) would more accurately model an inverse (upside-down) parabolic function.

When we feel sad or angry, effort is required to put us out of that mood. Recovery cannot be automatic, not even the strongest can recover immediately from great tragedy. One of the Chinese commentaries on the Dao, said that the meaning of being invulnerable to pain means not physical or emotional invulnerability, but mental invulnerability. A sage can still have feelings, but knows exactly what to do. By responding to these events positively, and eventually recovering, no harm can ever come to a sage. The proper quote should be: “It does not matter how hard you fall, it matters how quickly you recover [rather than bounce].”

Any business or political model is capable of recovery. Whether it be Bear Sterns, Worldcom, or dying online computer retailers (Such as Monarch Computer as well as hundreds of computer stores that have gone out of business in the last five years). The solution may be extremely difficult, but it requires a kind of dedication and optimism that not all top business executives have. The leaders must be willing to take responsibility and neither, tell someone else to acquire and merge their company, in order to maximize their profit, nor take the easy way out, which is to close the company. Take heed and bear witness to this advice.

This entry was posted on 7. April 2008 at 10:28 and is filed under Miscellaneous. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.