Something to ponder
Che Gannarelli
to give "thinking power" tests to its applicants, to try and look beyond
traditional exam results which are highly affected by social background.
The Guardian published a sample:
http://tinyurl.com/rlx9
--
Ché Gannarelli
s/_dot_/.
Henriette Kress
5 out of 7. My head hurts.
Hetta
--
Henriette Kress, AHG Helsinki, Finland
Henriette's herbal homepage: http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed
Best of RHOD: http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/rhod
Phil Smith
> No doubt you all like a challenge. Cambridge Univesity began, this year,
> to give "thinking power" tests to its applicants, to try and look beyond
> traditional exam results
*cough*grade inflation*cough*
> which are highly affected by social background.
> The Guardian published a sample:
3/7.
--
P.A.C. Smith
'If the Apocalypse comes, beep me.' <*> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~pas51
- Buffy the Vampire Slayer <*> replying by email: s/NOSPAM//
Daniel E. Macks
6/7.
dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies prefer the job-
interview thought questions
--
Daniel Macks
dma...@netspace.org
http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks
Lane Gray, Czar Castic
throat, glanced nervously around, and (and I'm not making this up)
declared:
Ow. Zero out of seven. I backed out of three correct answers after
overthinking them.
--
Lane Gray
get the .lead out before replying (sorry for munging, I can only take so
many copies of automat)
It sounds much more messy and therefore much more fun.(Fran, in the shed)
Jeffrey Kaplan
; No doubt you all like a challenge. Cambridge Univesity began, this year,
It won't tell me how I did.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"Anything I can do to help?" "Short of dying? No." (Mr. Morden and
Vir Coto, B5 "Interludes and Examinations")
TimC
Tee he he.
6/7
Incorrect one? Rather apropros, really:
Correct answer: People who win elections are never the right leaders
You answered incorrectly
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
ALU n. Arthritic Logic Unit, or (rare) Arithmetic Logic Unit. A random
number generator supplied as standard with all computer systems
TimC
> Previously on rec.humor.oracle.d, Che Gannarelli said:
>
>; No doubt you all like a challenge. Cambridge Univesity began, this year,
>; to give "thinking power" tests to its applicants, to try and look beyond
>; traditional exam results which are highly affected by social background.
>; The Guardian published a sample:
>;
>; http://tinyurl.com/rlx9
>
> It won't tell me how I did.
It means you failed the IQ test.
It's like the intilligence test I failed one day, because I couldn't
work out how to submit the results. Totally unfair, dude, making
people fail IQ tests as a function of what browser you use, and how
broken the site is!
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Disclaimer: This post owned by the owner
Che Gannarelli
> Correct answer: People who win elections are never the right leaders
> You answered incorrectly
>
6/7
Likewise, got this one wrong. Still not 100% convinced about it.
--
Ché Gannarelli
s/_dot_/.
Dave Hinz
> Previously on rec.humor.oracle.d, Che Gannarelli said:
>
> ; http://tinyurl.com/rlx9
>
> It won't tell me how I did.
Yeah, me too. I especially don't see the logic in the immunization one.
Dave "...and 3 others, it seems..." Hinz
Teh (tî'pô)
<che_dot_g...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>TimC wrote:
>> Correct answer: People who win elections are never the right leaders
>> You answered incorrectly
>>
>
>6/7
>
>Likewise, got this one wrong. Still not 100% convinced about it.
6/7
Missed #7 I doan geddit!
<reread/>
Oh I see now.
Never mind me, back to Teh old bridge it is...
Rick Dickinson
<che_dot_g...@ucl.ac.uk> is alleged to have written:
Whee! 7 out of 7!
- Rick "This bodes well for my LSAT results" Dickinson
--
"I just purchased a shiny new Leatherman Wave.[...] It's likely
that random objects in the house will spend the next few days
being plied, screwdriven, and scissed. When you have a Leatherman,
everything looks Leathermanipulable." -- Nathan McCoy
John D
<tcon...@no.astro.spam.swin.accepted.edu.here.au> wrote:
>Che Gannarelli (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> No doubt you all like a challenge. Cambridge Univesity began, this year,
>> to give "thinking power" tests to its applicants, to try and look beyond
>> traditional exam results which are highly affected by social background.
>> The Guardian published a sample:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/rlx9
>
>Tee he he.
>
>6/7
>
>Incorrect one? Rather apropros, really:
>
>Correct answer: People who win elections are never the right leaders
>You answered incorrectly
That's the one I missed, too. I coulda swore the conclusion was that
competitiveness is what's wrong with elections. I'm not entirely
convinced that their answer is best.
Reminds me of one IQ test question that I'm certain was scored against
me - pick which is most different in the list: horse, goat, mule,
kangaroo. I'm sure they say kangaroo, because it goes about on two
legs. I say it's the mule, because there is no naturally occuring
population.
-- John, whose big black plecostomus concludes that John has too much
time on his hands
Al Sharka
> TimC
>>
>>Correct answer: People who win elections are never the right leaders
>>You answered incorrectly
>
> That's the one I missed, too. I coulda swore the conclusion was that
> competitiveness is what's wrong with elections. I'm not entirely
> convinced that their answer is best.
But it's so true, regardless of the logic behind it. I agree with the
poster back there who said that anyone who wants the job shouldn't be
allowed to have it.
> Reminds me of one IQ test question that I'm certain was scored against
> me - pick which is most different in the list: horse, goat, mule,
> kangaroo. I'm sure they say kangaroo, because it goes about on two
> legs.
And carries its young in a pouch.
> I say it's the mule, because there is no naturally occuring
> population.
>
> -- John, whose big black plecostomus concludes that John has too much
> time on his hands
Yabbut, the goat is the only animal with horns, and the horse is distinct,
because there's nothing about it that is simultaneously distinct from the
other three, wheras the other three can be easily distinguished.
-- Al, err, a kangaroo is a mammal, right?
Daniel E. Macks
> John D wrote:
>> TimC
>>>
>>>Correct answer: People who win elections are never the right leaders
>>>You answered incorrectly
>>
>> That's the one I missed, too. I coulda swore the conclusion was that
>> competitiveness is what's wrong with elections. I'm not entirely
>> convinced that their answer is best.
>
> But it's so true, regardless of the logic behind it. I agree with the
> poster back there who said that anyone who wants the job shouldn't be
> allowed to have it.
>
>> Reminds me of one IQ test question that I'm certain was scored against
>> me - pick which is most different in the list: horse, goat, mule,
>> kangaroo. I'm sure they say kangaroo, because it goes about on two
>> legs.
>
> And carries its young in a pouch.
And is polysyllabic.
>> I say it's the mule, because there is no naturally occuring
>> population.
>
> Yabbut, the goat is the only animal with horns, and the horse is
> distinct, because there's nothing about it that is simultaneously
> distinct from the other three, wheras the other three can be easily
> distinguished.
Horse is the only one used in races. Nobody ever looks at me in the
shower and says "damn, Dan, you're hung like a {kangaroo,goat,mule}!"
Horse is the only one that is also a verb.
> -- Al, err, a kangaroo is a mammal, right?
And this affects your amorous plans how?
dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies play pocket pool
Richard Fitzpatrick
> TimC wrote:
> >
> > Correct answer: People who win elections are never the right leaders
> > You answered incorrectly
AOL
> 6/7
AOL
> Likewise, got this one wrong. Still not 100% convinced about it.
AOL. The questions in the quiz have some trouble distinguishing
between what is a conclusion and what is an assumption in the posited
arguments. When that made the question unclear or made which answer
was correct ambiguous, I had to think rather hard. At least once, I
deliberately (and "correctly") chose an assumption when they asked for
a conclusion or vice versa.
For example, in the question above about electoral systems the
argument is in fact assuming "People who win elections are never the
right leaders", but actually argues that "What is wrong with the
electoral system is its competitiveness" is the cause of never getting
the right leaders.
<shrug> It was a serious frustration in my early life to be smarter
than those testing me. Now I just sit back and enjoy it.
--
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is
that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just
borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages
down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets
for new vocabulary." - James D. Nicoll, resident of r.a.sf.w
Chris Wesling
>
> Che Gannarelli wrote ...
> > TimC wrote:
> > >
> > > Correct answer: People who win elections are never the right leaders
> > > You answered incorrectly
>
> AOL
>
>
> AOL. The questions in the quiz have some trouble distinguishing
> between what is a conclusion and what is an assumption in the posited
> arguments. When that made the question unclear or made which answer
> was correct ambiguous, I had to think rather hard. At least once, I
> deliberately (and "correctly") chose an assumption when they asked for
> a conclusion or vice versa.
>
> For example, in the question above about electoral systems the
> argument is in fact assuming "People who win elections are never the
> right leaders", but actually argues that "What is wrong with the
> electoral system is its competitiveness" is the cause of never getting
> the right leaders.
I got that one "wrong", too, but I thought about it some more and I think I
see their point. You can view the argument as presenting its main conclusion
first, and then *supporting* it with all the other stuff. Same with the
earlier one I got wrong, about the vaccination.
Trouble is, the very word "conclusion" suggests that it should be at the
*end* of the argument; I would say "proposition" would have been a better
word.
Chris W.
--
Replace the spamblock with sbcglobal [period] net to email me.
"Oh, bother," said the Borg, "we've assimilated Pooh."
Che Gannarelli
> For example, in the question above about electoral systems the
> argument is in fact assuming "People who win elections are never the
> right leaders", but actually argues that "What is wrong with the
> electoral system is its competitiveness" is the cause of never getting
> the right leaders.
Afraid I have to disagree. The postulates are:
A. Ambition is necessary to succeed in a democracy.
B. Ambition is undesirable in a political leader.
C. Humility is a hinderence in a democratic contest.
D. Humility is desirable in a leader.
A.B => Certain undesirable traits are seen in political leaders. = E
C.D => Certain desirable traits are not seen in political leaders = F
From E and F the argument concludes that democracies do not produce the
right leaders. (Note: Even if one accepts the postulates, this does not
necessarily follow.)
The fact that the conclusion of this argument is stated at the beginning
of the excerpt in this question is immaterial. This is common editorial
style. The distinction between postulate and conclusion depends on the
logical construction of the argument, and not on editorial conventions.
As shown above, from postulates A - D, it is inferred that democracies
do not produce the right leaders (true or otherwise - personally I
reckon it's the best idea we've got - you've got to have hope).
> to be smarter than those testing me...
I don't doubt it, but I'm certain you've got this one wrong.
--
Ché Gannarelli
s/_dot_/.
Che Gannarelli
>
> Trouble is, the very word "conclusion" suggests that it should be at the
> *end* of the argument; I would say "proposition" would have been a better
> word.
>
to that case (see post of c.2mins ago). I got it wrong too.
--
Ché Gannarelli
s/_dot_/.
TimC
> Richard Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> For example, in the question above about electoral systems the
>> argument is in fact assuming "People who win elections are never the
>> right leaders", but actually argues that "What is wrong with the
>> electoral system is its competitiveness" is the cause of never getting
>> the right leaders.
>
> I got that one "wrong", too, but I thought about it some more and I think I
> see their point. You can view the argument as presenting its main conclusion
> first, and then *supporting* it with all the other stuff. Same with the
> earlier one I got wrong, about the vaccination.
>
> Trouble is, the very word "conclusion" suggests that it should be at the
> *end* of the argument; I would say "proposition" would have been a better
> word.
I was always taught when writing essays something to the effect that
you start each paragraph with your point, and then expand on that
point. I would love to show my english/general studies teachers my
current works, becuase they would have a fit. All that counts is that
my supervisor reckons I write quite OK.
Keep the delusion, man.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.
Baerana
7 of 7! Once I got past feeling like I was being "tricked" it was easy.
Apparently, "thinking power" tests are for me, I usually don't do that
well on "traditional" exams...
Che Gannarelli
> 7 of 7! Once I got past feeling like I was being "tricked" it was easy.
> Apparently, "thinking power" tests are for me, I usually don't do that
> well on "traditional" exams...
>
No doubt that's the secret. It's very easy to suppose they're trying to
catch you out. In fact, the whole thing is rather straightforward.
--
Ché - got 6/7 but reckons he's got it sussed now.
s/_dot_/.
Henriette Kress
> Nobody ever looks at me in the
> shower and says "damn, Dan, you're hung like a {kangaroo,goat,mule}!"
So how often do they tell you you're hung like a horse? Or any other
animal for that matter?
Hetta, curious
Daniel E. Macks
> Daniel E. Macks wrote:
>
>> Nobody ever looks at me in the shower and says "damn, Dan, you're
>> hung like a {kangaroo,goat,mule}!"
>
> So how often do they tell you you're hung like a horse?
What? Oh, they said I was hung like a horse so I'm seeing how many
hands long I am. Yeah, that's what I'm doing...
> Or any other animal for that matter?
Squirrel. http://www.penisowner.com/poc/pics/squirrenuts.jpg
> Hetta, curious
Good thing Schrodinger had a reasonable scientific reason for
performing his experiments. Otherwise the cat would clearly be dead.
dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies don't like when the
pussy eats them
Chris Wesling
>
> The fact that the conclusion of this argument is stated at the beginning
> of the excerpt in this question is immaterial. This is common editorial
> style.
Well and good, but the question as posed in the test is not really testing
your reasoning ability, it's testing how well you know the terminology of
"postulate" and "conclusion". If they really want to test your pure
reasoning skill, as they claim they do, they should define the terms within
the test.
Chris W.
--
Replace the spamblock with sbcglobal [period] net to email me.
"You can count how many seeds are in the apple, but not how
many apples are in the seed." - Ken Kesey
Fierce Cookie
> My head hurts.
That's not what *I* heard.
--
Putain de 2CV, who has nothing significant to .sig right now.
Kenneth Comer Jr.
> Richard Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > For example, in the question above about electoral systems the
> > argument is in fact assuming "People who win elections are never the
> > right leaders", but actually argues that "What is wrong with the
> > electoral system is its competitiveness" is the cause of never getting
> > the right leaders.
>
> Afraid I have to disagree. The postulates are:
>
> A. Ambition is necessary to succeed in a democracy.
> B. Ambition is undesirable in a political leader.
> C. Humility is a hinderence in a democratic contest.
> D. Humility is desirable in a leader.
>
> A.B => Certain undesirable traits are seen in political leaders. = E
> C.D => Certain desirable traits are not seen in political leaders = F
>
> From E and F the argument concludes that democracies do not produce the
> right leaders. (Note: Even if one accepts the postulates, this does not
> necessarily follow.)
I disagree, and my basis for disagreeing does not involve disputation
of the minor premises stated above in anything other than wording.
The word "right" is either a value judgement (i.e., we are assuming
that having the leader who is most apt to attempt to perform according
to the wishes of those whose votes elect him is necessarily a "right"
thing) or a judgement as to the leader's fitness to the putative goal
of the election system. Restate these premises A-D in the following
form (which are more directly derived from the paragraph of evidence):
A. Ambition is necessary to succeed in a democracy.
B. Ambition is undesirable in a responsible leader.
C. Humility is a hinderence (sic) in a democratic contest.
D. Humility is desirable in a responsible leader.
A.B => Certain undesirable traits for a responsible leader are
rewarded by the election system. = E
C.D => Certain desirable traits for a responsible leader are rewarded
by the election system. = F
P. A responsible leader is one who ignores matters of personal
ambition and personal pride to formulate the correct policy.
Q. A responsible leader is the right one.
Z = "People who win elections are never the right leader."
No sweat. I'd buy E.F.Q = Z as a conclusion any day of the week. The
problem with that train of argument is that P is an assertion supplied
by the reader instead of what has been written. In point of fact, it
would be equally logical to assert the converse of P, and this would
coincidentally reflect reality more accurately:
P. The right leader is one whose personal ambition and pride can be
used as a tool to allow wealthy parties to manipulate him.
Q. A responsible leader is not the right one.
Now, not( Z ) = E.F.Q.
If we supply a value system not present in the original discussion, we
are perforce making conclusions based on arguments not present in the
paragraph as presented. If we are to avoid *unacknowledged* extrinsic
considerations, then we must define "right" in terms of fitness to the
purported intent of the electoral system, which means that we are now
free to assert which intent was purported. Clearly, the use to which
the words "desirable" and "undesirable" were put imply that it is
proper to assert that an intent to choose a responsible leader is the
goal of the electoral process.
Now we get A-F as I stated earlier, plus
P. The goal of an election process is to choose a responsible leader.
We can also state
E.F.P = The electoral process rewards are antithetical to the process
goal.
Now we have introduced an element which says nothing about the leader.
Instead, we now have an argument about the process, rather than the
results of the process. Further--based on a statement present in the
paragraph--we can also add these:
Q. The fact that the system is competitive causes persons possessing
virtues more appropriate (less inappropriate) to the goal of the
election to *not* emerge as winners.
R. The conditions "winner of competitive election" and "a person
possessing characteristics antithetical to the goals of the process"
are logically congruent. (This may be deduced from the fact that the
first implies the second in the first sentence of the paragraph, and
the use of the word "conversely" in the last means that, despite the
content of the sentence, we are intended to understand that the
coincidence between the non-undesirable and the lack of success in
elections to be causative. This deductive process is permitted only
once we make the assumption that the electoral process has a goal to
select a responsible leader. If we instead assert that the electoral
process has a goal to select an irresponsible leader, then this
reasoning process is no longer viable. By the definition of
"logically congruent," "if and only if a syllogism and its converse
are both true, then the clauses of the syllogism are logically
congruent.")
Substituting "winner of competitive election" for the logically
congruent "person possessing characteristics antithetical to the goal
of the election" in proposition Q yields "competitive elections cause
results inconsistent with the goals of the electoral process." This
seems to be the same as the statement "What is wrong with the
electoral system is its competitiveness." This means that the answer
is "E" and not "C."
The important thing, though, is that a person who was truly
intelligent wouldn't put even 10% this much effort proving this
meaningless bullshit to a bunch of people who really do not care. By
that test, I'm an idiot.
Hope this helps.
--
From the Certified Mind of Ken Comer (never trust an uncertifiable
brain)
))) Be happy, or suffer the consequences. (((
Al Sharka
>
> The important thing, though, is that a person who was truly
> intelligent wouldn't put even 10% this much effort proving this
> meaningless bullshit to a bunch of people who really do not care.
> By that test, I'm an idiot.
Nah. Looks like you fit in here[1] just fine.
--Al, "This froup is finally coming back to life."
[1] I originally tyoped that word without the second "e". Kind of
changes the meaning of the sentence somewhat.
No Bloody Nose
"Al Sharka" <ash...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:bo5pfo$14133l$1...@ID-94151.news.uni-berlin.de...
> (Kenneth Comer Jr.) wrote:
> >
> > The important thing, though, is that a person who was truly
> > intelligent wouldn't put even 10% this much effort proving this
> > meaningless bullshit to a bunch of people who really do not care.
> > By that test, I'm an idiot.
>
AL! That wasn't nice at all!
Richard Fitzpatrick
> Che Gannarelli wrote...
So am I, but that's okay.
> Hope this helps.
Well, it certainly helped me. Thanks, Kenneth - you've articulated
pretty closely my objection to the lack of clarity in the question(s).
Just that I couldn't be arsed to nut it out myself.
--
Richard, whose dull green Kampuchean loving ghoti wonders if the
spledding mistakes should have been a hint.
Sid
> No doubt you all like a challenge. Cambridge Univesity began, this
> year, to give "thinking power" tests to its applicants, to try and
> look beyond traditional exam results which are highly affected by
> social background. The Guardian published a sample:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/rlx9
w00t. 7/7
Sid
--
sid at nerte dot net
http://www.nerte.net
Che Gannarelli
> w00t. 7/7
>
Congrats, but (see raging argument above) not everyone accepts those
answers. I'm on your side mate.
--
Ché Gannarelli
s/_dot_/.
Rick Dickinson
is alleged to have written:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:14:22 +0100, Che Gannarelli
><che_dot_g...@ucl.ac.uk> is alleged to have written:
>
>>No doubt you all like a challenge. Cambridge Univesity began, this year,
>>to give "thinking power" tests to its applicants, to try and look beyond
>>traditional exam results which are highly affected by social background.
>>The Guardian published a sample:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/rlx9
>
>Whee! 7 out of 7!
>
> - Rick "This bodes well for my LSAT results" Dickinson
And, well it did! 169, which is 98th percentile!
Whee-hee!
- Rick "Poing!" Dickinson
--
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1755
Viki
news:f0mfqvg4lrtf43u2v...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:29:33 -0700, Rick Dickinson <r...@notesguy.com>
: is alleged to have written:
:
: >On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:14:22 +0100, Che Gannarelli
: ><che_dot_g...@ucl.ac.uk> is alleged to have written:
: >
: >>No doubt you all like a challenge. Cambridge Univesity began, this year,
: >>to give "thinking power" tests to its applicants, to try and look beyond
: >>traditional exam results which are highly affected by social background.
: >>The Guardian published a sample:
: >>
: >>http://tinyurl.com/rlx9
: >
: >Whee! 7 out of 7!
: >
: > - Rick "This bodes well for my LSAT results" Dickinson
:
: And, well it did! 169, which is 98th percentile!
:
: Whee-hee!
Congrats, now which schools are you applying to?
:)
Viki, who was only in the 95th percentile, way back when
Sid
> Sid wrote:
> > w00t. 7/7
> >
>
> Congrats, but (see raging argument above) not everyone accepts those
> answers. I'm on your side mate.
I'd be surprised if there weren't any raging arguments.
Sid, will read them when he has time, like at work
Che Gannarelli
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:29:33 -0700, Rick Dickinson <r...@notesguy.com>
> is alleged to have written:
>
>
> And, well it did! 169, which is 98th percentile!
>
Congratulations... erm... what the goddam are LSATS?
--
Ché Gannarelli
s/_dot_/.
No Bloody Nose
Legal Schoolastic Aptitude Test
Henriette Kress
> "Che Gannarelli" <che_dot_g...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Rick Dickinson wrote:
>> > Rick Dickinson <r...@notesguy.com> wrote:
>> >> - Rick "This bodes well for my LSAT results" Dickinson
>> >
>> > And, well it did! 169, which is 98th percentile!
>>
>> Congratulations... erm... what the goddam are LSATS?
>
> Legal Schoolastic Aptitude Test
And they are used for what?
Hetta (Printed on soft paper?)
Che Gannarelli
>
> And they are used for what?
>
> Hetta (Printed on soft paper?)
>
Like the IB, one would presume, by universities and employers. Ahh, It's
nice to have such things so far in the past.
Che - 26 today, and only one exam in his future, save those he sets!
(Tee hee)
--
Ché Gannarelli
s/_dot_/.
No Bloody Nose
"Henriette Kress" <spamtra...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.05.16.06.39.696762@hetta...
> No Bloody Nose wrote:
>
> > "Che Gannarelli" <che_dot_g...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Rick Dickinson wrote:
> >> > Rick Dickinson <r...@notesguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> - Rick "This bodes well for my LSAT results" Dickinson
> >> >
> >> > And, well it did! 169, which is 98th percentile!
> >>
> >> Congratulations... erm... what the goddam are LSATS?
> >
> > Legal Schoolastic Aptitude Test
>
> And they are used for what?
You already guessed
>
> Hetta (Printed on soft paper?)
Is any of it soft enough? I mean really?
That brings up something I've been pondering of late--do rich people have
access to better toilet paper than the rest of us? You know like spun from
damascus flax fiber, ultra-combed, 100 thread count to the inch, Swedish
milled, double ply, toilet paper?
Henriette Kress
> Henriette Kress wrote:
>>
>> And they are used for what?
>>
>> Hetta (Printed on soft paper?)
>
> Like the IB, one would presume, by universities and employers. Ahh, It's
> nice to have such things so far in the past.
So what's an IB then?
Hetta (also printed on soft paper?) (note, after I did my diploma thingy I
vowed, "never again!". It only took about 10 years, and I wrote first one,
then another book... mind you, the books were about topics that actually
interested me, not about some boring logistics setup in a multinational
company. Print diploma thingies on soft paper, is my advice - you can
reuse them if you do!)
Che Gannarelli
>
> So what's an IB then?
>
International Baccalaureate: the general school-leavers' exam in Europe,
although 'ere in Blighty, we have 'A' levels = General Certificate in
Education (GCE) Advanced level.
Che
--
Ché Gannarelli
s/_dot_/.
Phil Smith
> Henriette Kress wrote:
> >
> > So what's an IB then?
> >
>
> International Baccalaureate: the general school-leavers' exam in Europe,
> although 'ere in Blighty, we have 'A' levels = General Certificate in
> Education (GCE) Advanced level.
Not since last year; we now have 'AS' and 'A2' levels, which are the first
and second year of the old 'A' level respectively.
(This change is so that future grade-inflated exam results are not
directly comparable with the past, rather than to benefit students
or teachers.)
--
P.A.C. Smith
replying by email: s/NOSPAM//
"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
- George W. Bush (Washington DC, Oct 27 2003)
Richard Fitzpatrick
> Henriette Kress wrote...
> >
> > Hetta (Printed on soft paper?)
>
> Is any of it soft enough? I mean really?
>
> That brings up something I've been pondering of late--do rich people
> have access to better toilet paper than the rest of us? You know like
> spun from damascus flax fiber, ultra-combed, 100 thread count to the
> inch, Swedish milled, double ply, toilet paper?
Yes, that's what they have to put up with, the sad buggers.
OTOH, we - the Perfectly Rich[1] - are much more comfortable with what *we* use[2].
--
Richard, whose dull green Kampuchean loving ghoti fluffs and folds, not crinkles.
[1] Thanks to JG Ballard, I think.
[2] Don't ask - your life would always feel more inadequate than it ever has.
Daniel Practicing
"Richard Fitzpatrick" <ossi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4024cbd7.03110...@posting.google.com...
> No Bloody Nose wrote...
> > Henriette Kress wrote...
> > >
> > > Hetta (Printed on soft paper?)
> >
> > Is any of it soft enough? I mean really?
> >
> > That brings up something I've been pondering of late--do rich people
> > have access to better toilet paper than the rest of us? You know like
> > spun from damascus flax fiber, ultra-combed, 100 thread count to the
> > inch, Swedish milled, double ply, toilet paper?
>
> Yes, that's what they have to put up with, the sad buggers.
>
> OTOH, we - the Perfectly Rich[1] - are much more comfortable with what
*we* use[2].
Yer left 'and guv'ner?
Actually I don't want to be anything more than Comfortably Middle Class.
> --
> Richard, whose dull green Kampuchean loving ghoti fluffs and folds, not
crinkles.
>
> [1] Thanks to JG Ballard, I think.
> [2] Don't ask - your life would always feel more inadequate than it ever
has.
My life is adequately inadequate...I am not afraid...
Lane Gray, Czar Castic
throat, glanced nervously around, and (and I'm not making this up)
declared:
> No Bloody Nose wrote:
>
>> "Che Gannarelli" <che_dot_g...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Rick Dickinson wrote:
>>> > Rick Dickinson <r...@notesguy.com> wrote:
>>> >> - Rick "This bodes well for my LSAT results" Dickinson
>>> >
>>> > And, well it did! 169, which is 98th percentile!
>>>
>>> Congratulations... erm... what the goddam are LSATS?
>>
>> Legal Schoolastic Aptitude Test
>
> And they are used for what?
Getting into Law Skule.
--
Lane Gray
get the .lead out before replying (sorry for munging, I can only take so
many copies of automat)
It sounds much more messy and therefore much more fun.(Fran, in the shed)
Rick Dickinson
alleged to have written:
>Congrats, now which schools are you applying to?
None, yet. Need to get a bit more "post-secondary education" under my
belt, first. See, I never finished college... I got caught up in the
whole "getting paid for my time" thing, and never looked back, until
recently.
Now, I've either got about 3 years of college left if I decide to go
to an ABA-accredited law school, or just 1 year left if I decide to go
to a CBA-accredited school. (For those confused by the initials, ABA
= American Bar Association, and CBA = California Bar Association.)
ABA schools require a Bachelor's degree, but allow one to take the Bar
Exam in any (or all) states, while state schools are less stringent
about admission requirements, but only make you eligible to sit the
bar exam in the particular state where you go to school.
As I'm unlikely to be leaving California any time soon, I'm probably
going to go to a state bar accredited law school, and, therefore, I've
only got a year more of college ahead of me before I'm eligible to
apply to law school.
>:)
>
>Viki, who was only in the 95th percentile, way back when
"Only", eh? Sounds pretty good, to me.
Where'd you end up applying/attending?
- Rick "Curious" Dickinson
--
Rick Dickinson
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 12:46:15 +0000, Che Gannarelli
<che_dot_g...@ucl.ac.uk> is alleged to have written:
>Congratulations... erm... what the goddam are LSATS?
As others have come close to stating accurately, LSATs are the
standardized "Law School Admission Tests". Tests are administered by
the Law School Admissions Council 3 or 4 times a year, and the results
are supposed to give admissions officers at the schools to which you
apply some way to guage your aptitude for the study of law.
Like all standardized tests, they are flawed, and serve, in large
part, to mainly measure how well one does on standardized tests....
They are structured as 5 sections, 4 of which count towards your
score, and one of which is used as a "beta test" of potential question
pools for future tests. Each section is around 25 questions, give or
take a few. Of the 4 sections that count towards your score, 2 are
"Logical Reasoning" sections, 1 is "Logic Games", and 1 is Reading
Comprehension". While there are typically just over 100 "scored"
questions on the test, the scores reported fall into a 120-180 point
range, for no particular reason that I have been able to discern.
All in all, it was a fun test. Whether it says anything about my
aptitude for Law School is something that I'll have to wait a few
years to discover.... Fortunately, the results are "good" for 7
years, so I've got time.
- Rick "Enjoying taking random classes for now" Dickinson
Jeffrey Kaplan
; > >> - Rick "This bodes well for my LSAT results" Dickinson
; > > And, well it did! 169, which is 98th percentile!
; > Congratulations... erm... what the goddam are LSATS?
; Legal Schoolastic Aptitude Test
As opposed to the illegal one?
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"Now, the Emperor is a busy fellow, of course, no time to shop. Unlike
my beloved wives who always find the time to run up my credit
accounts." (Amb. Mollari, B5 "Soul Mates")
Tom Harrington
"Daniel Practicing" <thisis...@dmparker.com> wrote:
> Actually I don't want to be anything more than Comfortably Middle Class.
Well then, if you should ever happen to win a lottery or something, I'd
be glad to take all the excess cash off your hands.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 1.4: Best cleanup yet, gets files other tools miss.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/
The Dumpster
> In article <zpfqb.12301$Mc.1...@twister.austin.rr.com>,
> "Daniel Practicing" <thisis...@dmparker.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually I don't want to be anything more than Comfortably Middle Class.
>
>
> Well then, if you should ever happen to win a lottery or something, I'd
> be glad to take all the excess cash off your hands.
>
It would be simply amazing if I were to win the lottery, since I refuse
to pay tax on the fact that I can't do math very well.
Or in other words, I do math just well enough to know I'm better off
taking out life insurance on myself that includes a double indemity
clause for being struck by lightening on my way to buy a lottery ticket.
OK, time to do something important.
Daniel "I'm off to play nethack now" Parker
Viki
: On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:29:46 GMT, "Viki" <vv...@netscape.net> is
: alleged to have written:
:
: >Congrats, now which schools are you applying to?
:
: None, yet. Need to get a bit more "post-secondary education" under my
: belt, first. See, I never finished college... I got caught up in the
: whole "getting paid for my time" thing, and never looked back, until
: recently.
Understood. I did not go the "traditional" route either. Got married, had a
kid, went back when he was 18 months old, graduated with the j.d. at 30.
: Now, I've either got about 3 years of college left if I decide to go
: to an ABA-accredited law school, or just 1 year left if I decide to go
: to a CBA-accredited school. (For those confused by the initials, ABA
: = American Bar Association, and CBA = California Bar Association.)
: ABA schools require a Bachelor's degree, but allow one to take the Bar
: Exam in any (or all) states, while state schools are less stringent
: about admission requirements, but only make you eligible to sit the
: bar exam in the particular state where you go to school.
:
: As I'm unlikely to be leaving California any time soon, I'm probably
: going to go to a state bar accredited law school, and, therefore, I've
: only got a year more of college ahead of me before I'm eligible to
: apply to law school.
:
: >:)
: >
Kewl. I am gonna be teaching... sorry, instructing, at an on-line school
that goes by Calif. standards. So I've learned a little bit about how
different they are from here in PA. For instance, I had never heard of a
first year "baby bar" before.
: >Viki, who was only in the 95th percentile, way back when
:
: "Only", eh? Sounds pretty good, to me.
:
: Where'd you end up applying/attending?
:
: - Rick "Curious" Dickinson
:
I was foolish and silly. Didn't even try to get in anywhere but the local
schools, cause the husband wouldn't move. I really, REALLY wanted to go to a
good school with those grades, I lived inCharlotesville VA for about a year
and wanted to try UVA, would have loved to at least try to get into a biggie
like Yale, but I didn't even attempt it. I got into both Pitt Law and
Duquesne Law, both here in Pittsburgh. Duquesne had a night school, and,
since I had a kid at the time [and had the second kid during 3rd year, and
the third one right after graduation], night school was the way to go for
me.
It turned out all right, as of course things always do. But I still wish I'd
have tried for Yale. I wanted that one.
Damn bastard soon-to-be-ex.
Viki
Donald Welsh
> Viki, who was only in the 95th percentile, way back when
Way back *before* the WonderBra. Impressive.
Donald Welsh
> For instance, I had never heard of a first year "baby bar" before.
Does the beer taste better than cat piss? Still, drinking before you can
walk is impressive. Usually it's the other way around; you drink until
you can't walk.
TimC
> Not since last year; we now have 'AS' and 'A2' levels, which are the first
> and second year of the old 'A' level respectively.
>
> (This change is so that future grade-inflated exam results are not
> directly comparable with the past, rather than to benefit students
> or teachers.)
Sounds familiar. We used to have a percentile system - you get 98
means you are in the 98th percentile. They changed that, so as to make
it harder to draw a conclusion, so as to save the self esteems of the
stupid people. They also stop giving you a score below 15, whatever
that corresponds to in real life.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
My code is giving me mixed signals. SIGSEGV then SIGILL then SIGBUS. -- me
TimC
> Henriette Kress wrote:
>>
>> And they are used for what?
>>
>> Hetta (Printed on soft paper?)
>>
>
> Like the IB, one would presume, by universities and employers. Ahh, It's
> nice to have such things so far in the past.
>
> Che - 26 today,
It's 27 when you realise just how old you're getting.
Tee hee. <runs away>
> and only one exam in his future, save those he sets!
The problem of setting exams is you have to justify to the faculty why
all the little blighters keep getting 0.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
It's written GNU/Linux, and pronounced "Linux". Or, "Linux, with a
silent GNU/"
Che Gannarelli
>
> The problem of setting exams is you have to justify to the faculty why
> all the little blighters keep getting 0.
>
Urrgh, don't. Nowadays their stupidity is my problem. Few things cause
greater dismay that when undergraduates at one of the country's top
Physics departments are heard to say, "quadratic what?"
Che - When I we're a lad we learned differential geometry on our
mother's knee.
--
Ché Gannarelli
s/_dot_/.
Jeffrey Kaplan
; It turned out all right, as of course things always do. But I still wish I'd
; have tried for Yale. I wanted that one.
Well, you could have applied anyway, and then just not gone. That way,
you'd have been able to say that you were accepted there.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"If you push Morden, sooner or later, he will tell you what happened.
Then he will be killed. And you will be killed. The Shadows will move
now, before we're ready for them." (Amb. Delenn, B5 "In the Shadow of
Z'Ha'Dum")
Teh (tî'pô)
nipples of rec.humor.oracle.d by saying:
>Che Gannarelli (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Henriette Kress wrote:
>>>
>>> And they are used for what?
>>>
>>> Hetta (Printed on soft paper?)
>>>
>>
>> Like the IB, one would presume, by universities and employers. Ahh, It's
>> nice to have such things so far in the past.
>>
>> Che - 26 today,
>
>It's 27 when you realise just how old you're getting.
>
>Tee hee. <runs away>
>
>> and only one exam in his future, save those he sets!
>
>The problem of setting exams is you have to justify to the faculty why
>all the little blighters keep getting 0.
Sometimes when the average is too low the final grade would be
sqrt(grade)*10. So if you got 100% you still have 100 but if you got
81% you got 9 extra points and if you got 36 you would pass.
Legend has it that things got interesting when some lecturers had a
grading system that gave negative points for wrong answers (rationale:
if you don't know don't guess) and people started getting complex
grades.
Unsurprisingly this confuzled Teh computers.
Phil Smith
> TimC bravely attempted to attach 26 electrodes of knowledge to the
> nipples of rec.humor.oracle.d by saying:
[snip]
> >
> >The problem of setting exams is you have to justify to the faculty why
> >all the little blighters keep getting 0.
>
> Sometimes when the average is too low the final grade would be
> sqrt(grade)*10. So if you got 100% you still have 100 but if you got
> 81% you got 9 extra points and if you got 36 you would pass.
Here's a better scheme:
"The final mark (M) is calculated from the raw mark (m) by:
M = a*sqrt((19/100)*(81/19 + m/b))
where a is the maximum obtainable final mark and b the maximum obtained
raw mark."
Wohoo! Everyone gets >= 90% !
This is just a special case of
M(m) = a*sqrt( (k + m/b)/(k + 1) )
which has the property that M(0) -> a as k -> +oo ...
--
P.A.C. Smith
replying by email: s/NOSPAM//
"Ah! You Engineer. You build bridge. Bridge fall down. No partial
credit!!"
- Dr. Zia, Differential Equations, Manhattan College, Bronx, NY
(February 2003)
TimC
> On Nov 9 Teh (tî'pô) wrote in rec.humor.oracle.d:
>
>> TimC bravely attempted to attach 26 electrodes of knowledge to the
>> nipples of rec.humor.oracle.d by saying:
>
> [snip]
> Wohoo! Everyone gets >= 90% !
>
> This is just a special case of
>
> M(m) = a*sqrt( (k + m/b)/(k + 1) )
>
> which has the property that M(0) -> a as k -> +oo ...
>
> --
> P.A.C. Smith
> replying by email: s/NOSPAM//
>
> "Ah! You Engineer. You build bridge. Bridge fall down. No partial
> credit!!"
> - Dr. Zia, Differential Equations, Manhattan College, Bronx, NY
> (February 2003)
Teeheehee. HAHAHAHAHAHA. MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Ahem. I think I would like that guy.
Probably like our Dr Wong in Computer Science. Mind you, 95/100 of the
class didn't like him.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Love makes the world go 'round, with a little help from intrinsic
angular momentum.
Donald Welsh
> Henriette Kress attempted to infuriate me by saying:
>
>> My head hurts.
>
> That's not what *I* heard.
Ouch, *now* you've bitten off more than you can chew.
Lane Gray, Czar Castic
>>
>> The problem of setting exams is you have to justify to the faculty why
>> all the little blighters keep getting 0.
>
> Sometimes when the average is too low the final grade would be
> sqrt(grade)*10. So if you got 100% you still have 100 but if you got
> 81% you got 9 extra points and if you got 36 you would pass.
>
> Legend has it that things got interesting when some lecturers had a
> grading system that gave negative points for wrong answers (rationale:
> if you don't know don't guess) and people started getting complex
> grades.
Exactly the opposite of the SATs over here. You get a quarter point for
every *wrong* answer, so on a test with 800 possible points (or 1600 if
you combine math and verbal), one can't score any lower than 200 (400),
unless you don't answer all the questions.
Daniel E. Macks
> Teh (tî'pô) <t...@mindless.com> declared:
>>>
>>> The problem of setting exams is you have to justify to the faculty why
>>> all the little blighters keep getting 0.
>>
>> Sometimes when the average is too low the final grade would be
>> sqrt(grade)*10. So if you got 100% you still have 100 but if you got
>> 81% you got 9 extra points and if you got 36 you would pass.
>>
>> Legend has it that things got interesting when some lecturers had a
>> grading system that gave negative points for wrong answers (rationale:
>> if you don't know don't guess) and people started getting complex
>> grades.
>
> Exactly the opposite of the SATs over here. You get a quarter point for
> every *wrong* answer, so on a test with 800 possible points (or 1600 if
> you combine math and verbal), one can't score any lower than 200 (400),
> unless you don't answer all the questions.
Actually SATs are scored as Teh described. Gain one point for correct,
nothing for skip, loss of a fraction for incorrect. This raw score is
then scaled to convert to a score in the 200-800 range.
dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies know more uses for a #2
pencil, milligram formilligram, than any creature in the universe
--
Daniel Macks
dma...@netspace.org
http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks
Lane Gray, Czar Castic
butbutbut I distinctly recall being told that it was better to guess than
to skip, if you didn't know the answer. Then again, I earned my 1440 back
in 1980.
Daniel E. Macks
> Daniel E. Macks <dma...@netspace.org> cleared that pesky dry throat,
> glanced nervously around, and (and I'm not making this up) declared:
>
>> Lane Gray, Czar Castic <CGr...@kc.Pb.rr.com> said:
>>>
>>> Exactly the opposite of the SATs over here. You get a quarter point for
>>> every *wrong* answer, so on a test with 800 possible points (or 1600 if
>>> you combine math and verbal), one can't score any lower than 200 (400),
>>> unless you don't answer all the questions.
>>
>> Actually SATs are scored as Teh described. Gain one point for correct,
>> nothing for skip, loss of a fraction for incorrect. This raw score is
>> then scaled to convert to a score in the 200-800 range.
>>
>> dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies know more uses for a #2
>> pencil, milligram formilligram, than any creature in the universe
>>
> butbutbut I distinctly recall being told that it was better to guess than
> to skip, if you didn't know the answer.
...but if you could eliminate at least one of the choices.
The scoring system is designed to make purely random guesses useless.
For n-choice questions, you lose 1/(n-1) of a point for each wrong
answer, so random guessing on average gives not net gain. For 4
4-choice questions you'd randomly get one correct and three wrong,
which gives +1-3(1/3)=0. I first took it in mid/late 80s, and that was
the long-established scoring system.
> Then again, I earned my 1440 back in 1980.
That's because you're not a minority from the inner city.
</flame-bait>
Not bad a'tall, especially as it was before the "students are getting
dumber, let's give everyone extra points to make them feel better"
rescaling in the mid-90s. Of course the test is useless for the very
high scores.
dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies left Chicago travelling
at 50 mph.
Ian Davis
"Daniel E. Macks" <dma...@netspace.org> wrote:
> > butbutbut I distinctly recall being told that it was better to guess than
> > to skip, if you didn't know the answer.
>
> ...but if you could eliminate at least one of the choices.
>
> The scoring system is designed to make purely random guesses useless.
> For n-choice questions, you lose 1/(n-1) of a point for each wrong
> answer, so random guessing on average gives not net gain. For 4
> 4-choice questions you'd randomly get one correct and three wrong,
> which gives +1-3(1/3)=0. I first took it in mid/late 80s, and that was
> the long-established scoring system.
Ooo! Ooo! An opportunity to reintroduce a classic flame war!
If you're on the quiz show, you pick one of the three doors and the
host asks you if you want to switch, is it better to do so?
Ian, sitting back with the popcorn and the asbestos undies.
Lane Gray, Czar Castic
>
> Ian, sitting back with the popcorn and the asbestos undies.
^door #1^ ^ door#3 ^
Shoulda gone for number 2, Ian.
Daniel E. Macks
> "Daniel E. Macks" <dma...@netspace.org> wrote:
>
>> > butbutbut I distinctly recall being told that it was better to guess than
>> > to skip, if you didn't know the answer.
>>
>> ...but if you could eliminate at least one of the choices.
>>
>> The scoring system is designed to make purely random guesses useless.
>
> Ooo! Ooo! An opportunity to reintroduce a classic flame war!
>
> If you're on the quiz show, you pick one of the three doors and the
> host asks you if you want to switch, is it better to do so?
Doesn't the host identify one of the "not it" doors before offering
you the chance to switch? Otherwise it's no difference:)
But of course it really depends on what's behind the door. If there's
a tiger, I'd stay with the same choice...
I think The Price is Right has/had a similar game (pick one of four,
Bob tells you a wrong one, you can stay or switch to one of the other
two).
> Ian, sitting back with the popcorn and the asbestos undies.
Make sure you don't mix those up.
dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies like the hottest chili,
milligram for milligram, of any creature in the universe
Jeffrey Kaplan
; I think The Price is Right has/had a similar game (pick one of four,
; Bob tells you a wrong one, you can stay or switch to one of the other
; two).
ITYM "Let's Make A Deal".
--
Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy." - George W. Bush
Phil Smith
> Previously on rec.humor.oracle.d, Daniel E. Macks said:
>
> ; I think The Price is Right has/had a similar game (pick one of four,
> ; Bob tells you a wrong one, you can stay or switch to one of the other
> ; two).
>
> ITYM "Let's Make A Deal".
"Computer, take away one right answer and one wrong answer and leave
Barry with the two remaining wrong answers.
"So, what is the first letter of 'aardvark', 'B' or 'D'?"[1]
- "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue" sketch.
> --
> Jeffrey Kaplan <*> www.gordol.org
> The from userid is killfiled <*> Send personal mail to gordol
>
> "I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy." - George W. Bush
>
DAERTA "I will have a foreign-handed even policy"?
[1]: All I know is that 'A' wasn't one of the remaining choices.
--
P.A.C. Smith
replying by email: s/NOSPAM//
"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.