Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Akura]

"Predicting the failure of students in university courses can provide useful information for course and programme managers as well as to explain the drop out phenomenon."

I guess the next stop is "sorry, you'll fail this course if you enlist, our automatic prediction software said so".

I suppose the difference between whether that is something tolerable or not is whether the next part is "Student: Challenge accepted" or "Course Manager: We'll fail you no matter how hard you try because our software predicted your failure".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not the same phenomena, but I had a professor who openly told us that he manipulated his classes to ensure a B average because that was what the school considered believable. He also admitted that this varied between sections, and that our section was the one getting the test that didn't produce As while his other section was getting one easy to ace.

We were all in such shock that nobody could even speak a word. Not just that he'd do it, because I think we all suspect this sort of thing every once in a while, but that he'd do it and admit it and admit it to the people he was destroying the grade of for his job security.

Still got an A, though.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Not the same phenomena, but I had a professor who openly told us that he manipulated his classes to ensure a B average because that was what the school considered believable. He also admitted that this varied between sections, and that our section was the one getting the test that didn't produce As while his other section was getting one easy to ace.

We were all in such shock that nobody could even speak a word. Not just that he'd do it, because I think we all suspect this sort of thing every once in a while, but that he'd do it and admit it and admit it to the people he was destroying the grade of for his job security.

Still got an A, though.

Did anybody have the good-fortune and foresight to leave their recording device on while he said that?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I doubt anybody was clairvoyant, no. Besides, it would not have made a difference. What he was saying about the desires of the school was true, they totally would have taken a glut of Bs in exchange for a dirth of As. I think most educational facilities would.

In retrospect, and getting an A myself, I have also considered the possibility that it may have been some mildly fucked up practical application of the expectation-performance experiments in order to make us indignant and try harder, or a very fucked up version of the same to ensure we knew we could not succeed and thus would not.

[Frumple]

I think the question is, did you check with the other classes to see if he told one of them they were the A class? Because it'd be a very professory thing to do to say that exact thing to every single class they had :V

[Reelya]

"Predicting the failure of students in university courses can provide useful information for course and programme managers as well as to explain the drop out phenomenon."

I guess the next stop is "sorry, you'll fail this course if you enlist, our automatic prediction software said so".

They already use arbitrary selection criteria for screening out applicants right now. The main issue is that they never double-check to see whether those criteria actually do what they're supposed to do - work out the applicants most likely to succeed. The only real change being mooted here is to use feedback to determine what your entrance exam and selection criteria should be. Going from a system of "random shit we thought up that might indicate you'll succeed" to "all the shit we could think up, the run that data through a computer to see which patterns best predict you will succeed" is basically a guaranteed win, in terms of optimizing what goes on an entrance exam and how to weight the questions. The benefits include:

- higher pass rates means less costs per student, less teacher's time wasted
- better quality of students means less time wasted on slow people, which is better for the good students
- more efficient use of society's resources
- saves time and money for people not suited to the course
- people rejected have a chance to find a course they have a better chance of passing

Well, a few people who would have done well even though the prediction said otherwise will get excluded, but they will be outnumbered by the amount of people who are currently being unfairly excluded according to the current non-optimized entrance criteria.

[Kot]

Lindybeige made this.

Goddamnit Lindybeige, holy shit, please stop those goddamn clickbaits. I mean, like, I get that the point was saying that from the point of view of ancient people it was stupid and dangerous idea, which is kinda true, but... come on, through the whole video I was about to start ranting how he fucked up even more than the infamous Spandau video.

[pisskop]

Calvary was a holdover from an earlier time.  I hope hes talking about calvary with maybe a breastplate and a rifle.


If he is talking about all mounted critters hes being a humanitarian arsehole.


Calvary being amazing makes sense in itself.  Its better than peoplelegs.  And now we have metal horses to ride.

[MagmaMcFry]

SWORD FIGHTS ON MOTORCYCLES

[Kot]

He's talking about history, not modern times because that would be understandable (though horses do have their uses even these days). Like, that getting up on a horse and going to fight people on foot through the ages (ancient, medieval, so on) is a stupid idea. I mean, kind of, yes, the first person to think about this must have been mad, but hey, if it's stupid and it works it ain't stupid.

SWORD FIGHTS ON MOTORCYCLES

ATVs more likely. They're better suited for military needs than motorcycles.

[MidnightJaguar]

I mean, I'm no expert by any means, but from what I understand cavalry almost always lost if they went against well displined and competently positioned troops equipped with spears or pikes or other long weapons.Though if you were chasing people down after a line broke there was nothing better. For going against ill diplined troops or for screening or scouting or skirmishing or exploiting weaknesses in the line such as killing exposed units that don't have the right defenses they are also good. though of course for attacking things that don't move or actually holding land then cav is worse than useless. Of course all of this depends on what era of warfare your talking about. so I mean cav is situational to be certain but it was effective if used right. Like most things in warfare really.

[pisskop]

You are are confusing dangerous and socially dismissed with stupid.

Back when people didnt know that horses were safe to use than yes it was probably seen as crazy and a waste of time/resources to ride a feral beast into battle on its back as its trying to throw you off and is afraid of pointies and sound.


but chariots, as he pointed out, were the starting period.   We bred stronker, larger horses to carry us faster and with more stuff on back.  most likely people imagined an actually personell carriers, taking whole groups of soldiers or archer to a flank position and unloading them.

With stronger whorses, who didnt fear battle (at least from a distance, biut plenty of them were shock troopers), they were halfway to riding them. 

The could be handled safely, could bear a weight on their back (pack animals), and were conditioned to battle.  It was, as again he said, simply a matter of developing a means to let them climb up and control them while holding weapons.



He has a clickbait title to the video, but he more or less lays out the same thing I have just said in his video.  I should make my own videos nao.


   What his video title tells me is:  "Layman!  You know how you call something stupid because you dont think it can be done?  All great innovation is people doing what everyone thought could not be done!  Look at the horse for example; it is so common you take the process of domestication and development of saddles for granted!  Bow before my ranting!  Down on your knees Im the piano god!"

[hector13]

Mongols did alright with horses.

[ChairmanPoo]

With stronger whorses, who didnt fear battle (at least from a distance, biut plenty of them were shock troopers), they were halfway to riding them. 

You mistyped that. It's "hores" not "whorses"

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[TempAcc]

Ehhh, I think its pretty hard to deny that horses were a crucial element of many ancient military successes. If not for heavy cavalry and mounted archers, hungary, the mongols and maybe even byzantium wouldn't have been things that existed. In fact, mounted archers are specifically cited as devastating in several ancient romans accounts, mostly because the larger chunk of the roman army consisted entirely of infantry.