NationStates

It never fails to surprise me how often rightwingers get caught not knowing how the topic they're running on, or voting on, advocating policy about actually work. This time, they clearly have a totally wrong notion of how public education is funded and run, and about which party has recently been the one to interfere with it, yet this is one of the topics that they claim to have clear and strong views on. It amazes me.

Vonners wrote:

greed and death wrote:
But the feds aren't in education. WE only got a federal standardized test under Bush thanks to the No Child Left behind act. Otherwise there is literally no across the board federal education.

what about those SAT type tests? Aren't they federal?

nope
they are private testing companies.

Ashmoria wrote:

Vonners wrote:
what about those SAT type tests? Aren't they federal?

nope
they are private testing companies.

but where is the profit coming from?

Vonners wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:nope
they are private testing companies.

but where is the profit coming from?

dont you pay to take those tests? i dont remember.

Ashmoria wrote:

Vonners wrote:
but where is the profit coming from?

dont you pay to take those tests? i dont remember.

Wiki sayeth, "The current SAT Reasoning Test, introduced in 2005, takes three hours and forty-five minutes, and costs $47 ($75 International), excluding late fees."

Ashmoria wrote:

Vonners wrote:
but where is the profit coming from?

dont you pay to take those tests? i dont remember.

I thought they were compulsory and administered by the school you are attending? I really don't know...I think I did a SAT but that was a while back. Or was it a PSAT? Actually is there such a thing as a PSAT?

I think I've been through too many school systems...national school systems that is

Farnhamia wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:dont you pay to take those tests? i dont remember.

Wiki sayeth, "The current SAT Reasoning Test, introduced in 2005, takes three hours and forty-five minutes, and costs $47 ($75 International), excluding late fees."

In addition, the private company that owns, publishes, what-have-you the test is a non-profit.

Vonners wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:dont you pay to take those tests? i dont remember.

I thought they were compulsory and administered by the school you are attending? I really don't know...I think I did a SAT but that was a while back. Or was it a PSAT? Actually is there such a thing as a PSAT?

I think I've been through too many school systems...national school systems that is

You're probably thinking of the PSAT.

Deus Malum wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Wiki sayeth, "The current SAT Reasoning Test, introduced in 2005, takes three hours and forty-five minutes, and costs $47 ($75 International), excluding late fees."

In addition, the private company that owns, publishes, what-have-you the test is a non-profit.

By gosh, so they are. That's why it's only $47 and not $147.

Farnhamia wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:dont you pay to take those tests? i dont remember.

Wiki sayeth, "The current SAT Reasoning Test, introduced in 2005, takes three hours and forty-five minutes, and costs $47 ($75 International), excluding late fees."

wow! things have changed...I certainly don't remember having to pay for these tests...still ...if it moves...monetise it eh?

Deus Malum wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Wiki sayeth, "The current SAT Reasoning Test, introduced in 2005, takes three hours and forty-five minutes, and costs $47 ($75 International), excluding late fees."

In addition, the private company that owns, publishes, what-have-you the test is a non-profit.

Thanks to generous salaries. The whole scheme was a cleverly devised kickback to their friends in the evaluation and testing industries.

Deus Malum wrote:

Vonners wrote:
I thought they were compulsory and administered by the school you are attending? I really don't know...I think I did a SAT but that was a while back. Or was it a PSAT? Actually is there such a thing as a PSAT?

I think I've been through too many school systems...national school systems that is

You're probably thinking of the PSAT.

yeah could well be...

Farnhamia wrote:

Deus Malum wrote:In addition, the private company that owns, publishes, what-have-you the test is a non-profit.

By gosh, so they are. That's why it's only $47 and not $147.

What's with the snark? I was just adding to information already provided.

Vonners wrote:

Deus Malum wrote:You're probably thinking of the PSAT.

yeah could well be...

Neither is compulsory. There's a great deal of pressure to take them, because everyone in America should go to college, but you aren't required by any means.

"PSAT/NMSQT stands for Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test. It's a fee-based standardized test that provides first-hand practice for the SAT Reasoning Test. It also functions as a qualifying test for the National Merit Scholarship Corporation scholarship programs."

The College Board, a private non-profit organization of education professionals and institutions owns and sells the SAT tests.

Yeah. She attended Hogwarts. They don't 'fail' people at Hogwarts, as punishment they just transform you into a large pot of mashed potatoes.

Farnhamia wrote:

Vonners wrote:
yeah could well be...

Neither is compulsory. There's a great deal of pressure to take them, because everyone in America should go to college, but you aren't required by any means.

"PSAT/NMSQT stands for Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test. It's a fee-based standardized test that provides first-hand practice for the SAT Reasoning Test. It also functions as a qualifying test for the National Merit Scholarship Corporation scholarship programs."

what little I remember was that we had to take one of these exams...it was compulsory...then again I really don't remember much about my actual schooling from way back then...

anyway...Christine cannot be considered a credible candidate.

Is it only because she's a conservative woman?

I bet if this was a hardcore liberal woman, all some of NSG would be praising her for her loyality to Obamaism liberalism.

The Republic of Lanos wrote:Is it only because she's a conservative woman?

I bet if this was a hardcore liberal woman, all some of NSG would be praising her for her loyality to Obamaism liberalism.

No not really...if it was a Dem or Lib I'd have posted the same.

The Republic of Lanos wrote:Is it only because she's a conservative woman?

I bet if this was a hardcore liberal woman, all some of NSG would be praising her for her loyality to Obamaism liberalism.

i bet youre wrong.

evidence:

no liberal is lionizing alvin greene (running for senate in NC against jim demint)

The Republic of Lanos wrote:Is it only because she's a conservative woman?

I bet if this was a hardcore liberal woman, all some of NSG would be praising her for her loyality to Obamaism liberalism.

How cute, those crossings-out.

If a hardcore liberal woman were as uninformed and as proud of it, despite pretending to have studied at three separate colleges which have little or no record of her, I would lead the charge to get rid of her. Ignorance is not and should not be chic, which is what O'Donnell, Palin, Angle and Bachmann have made it. Nice role models for the young, ladies, real nice.

The Republic of Lanos wrote:Is it only because she's a conservative woman?

I bet if this was a hardcore liberal woman, all some of NSG would be praising her for her loyality to Obamaism liberalism.

I bet if you keep constructing strawman arguments we're going to keep laughing at your pathetic excuse for debate.

Oh look, turns out I'm right.

Ashmoria wrote:

The Republic of Lanos wrote:Is it only because she's a conservative woman?

I bet if this was a hardcore liberal woman, all some of NSG would be praising her for her loyality to Obamaism liberalism.

i bet youre wrong.

evidence:

no liberal is lionizing alvin greene (running for senate in NC against jim demint)

I bet he's wrong.

Evidence:

Not knowing about the constitution is not loyalty to liberalism.

Bluth Corporation wrote:I have no objection to mathematics, in and of itself. It's simply a field of study that does nothing to improve men. Certainly, it can help make nifty devices that make life more convenient or longer--but what's the use of an extra five years of life if those years are devoid of beauty and love and enlightenment?

1) Those little ideas from mathematics, physics, chemistry, and medicine that have improved life have also made man better. You can't realize your potential as a corpse.

2) Do you seriously only value knowledge in terms of the benefits it gives? The humanities are only good because they improve people? There's no inherent value in knowledge just for the sake of knowledge?

3) Most scientists and mathematicians aren't in it for improving mankind or deriving practical benefits. They are driven by a fundamental curiosity and desire to understand the universe. You have a pathetically shallow understanding of the motivations of science.

Unhealthy2 wrote:

Bluth Corporation wrote:I have no objection to mathematics, in and of itself. It's simply a field of study that does nothing to improve men. Certainly, it can help make nifty devices that make life more convenient or longer--but what's the use of an extra five years of life if those years are devoid of beauty and love and enlightenment?

1) Those little ideas from mathematics, physics, chemistry, and medicine that have improved life have also made man better. You can't realize your potential as a corpse.

2) Do you seriously only value knowledge in terms of the benefits it gives? The humanities are only good because they improve people? There's no inherent value in knowledge just for the sake of knowledge?

3) Most scientists and mathematicians aren't in it for improving mankind or deriving practical benefits. They are driven by a fundamental curiosity and desire to understand the universe. You have a pathetically shallow understanding of the motivations of science.

This always amuses me when people believe Relativity had no useful technological contribution and then gush about having GPS on their new smart phones.