By Not Go To PostWell they're dusting off the birther thing. Pretty effective last timeyeah i wonder where they got that from
John Marvin Weed, 59, died after police say he was assaulted by 15- and 16-year-old brothers at the fair in September. The 16-year-old pleaded guilty July 8 in Frederick County Circuit Court to one count of second-degree assault, which his attorney said was specifically for spitting on Weed. His disposition hearing, akin to sentencing, was held Wednesday, according to a news release from the State’s Attorney for Frederick County.This happened in Western Maryland, about 50 miles outside of Baltimore. But shit like this, a murder where the perpetrators essentially get off with nothing, is hard to defend when the gun nuts talk about their need to open carry.
Prosecutors say that just after 5:30 p.m. on Sept. 20, Weed was approached by the two teens and a couple of their friends while out with his family at the fair. The 15-year-old and another youth asked Weed for a dollar, and Weed told them no. That’s when a verbal altercation ensued.
Weed started to walk away, the teens followed him, and the 16-year-old punched him in the back of the head, according to a release from the state’s attorney’s office. As Weed “squared up” with the older brother, the 15-year-old came running and punched Weed with such force that he appeared to lose consciousness almost immediately, according to the release. While Weed was on the ground, the 16-year-old spat on him, the release reads.
Weed was found on the ground near the midway area of the Frederick fairgrounds and was flown to Shock Trauma in Baltimore. He never regained consciousness and died a day later.
Conditions of the 16-year-old’s probation include, according to the state’s attorney spokesperson, participating in a victim awareness program to help juveniles understand the victims’ perspective. In the juvenile’s home, services will be put in place to serve counseling needs for the family, plus therapy for behavior modification and anger management, and anger management classes. The 16-year-old will also have to abide by standard conditions of probation such as obeying laws and going to school.The victims perspective? The motherfucker is dead!!
Obey laws and go to school?! That'll learn em...
These pussy liberal shit charges for violent offenders is inexcusable and unbelievable to me. Lock these pieces of shit up and free the 40,000 people still incarcerated on weed offenses.
I’m confused. The birthers are claiming Kamala is not eligible since her parents were not citizens when she was born. Why didn’t they claim that for Obama? Why did they obsess over where he was born and not just simply state that his father was not a US citizen, which no one ever claimed he was?
By FortuneFaded Go To PostI’m confused. The birthers are claiming Kamala is not eligible since her parents were not citizens when she was born. Why didn’t they claim that for Obama? Why did they obsess over where he was born and not just simply state that his father was not a US citizen, which no one ever claimed he was?his mother was undoubtedly a citizen whose roots could be traced back to like the Bush family. So make it like he was born overseas was the best they could do.
By blackace Go To Posthis mother was undoubtedly a citizen whose roots could be traced back to like the Bush family. So make it like he was born overseas was the best they could do.Three legged stool test though
By FortuneFaded Go To PostI’m confused. The birthers are claiming Kamala is not eligible since her parents were not citizens when she was born. Why didn’t they claim that for Obama? Why did they obsess over where he was born and not just simply state that his father was not a US citizen, which no one ever claimed he was?It's not entirely a birther thing. At least not 1:1 between the rights spin and the lefts purity testing. Kamala's racial identity changing to whatever is most convenient has been a problem for many within the party for years.
Much like it's incredibly grating when white people jack a movement or advantage, it's similar when other races do it. The african american experience is a unique one and at the very least Obama kept himself consistent, taking punches when it was necessary and at least appearing genuinely empathetic.
Not becoming "a person of color" when pressed even slightly and putting on a pedantic act when the environment is welcoming.
By GQman2121 Go To PostYou are not tripping. That shit is insanity to me.
This happened in Western Maryland, about 50 miles outside of Baltimore. But shit like this, a murder where the perpetrators essentially get off with nothing, is hard to defend when the gun nuts talk about their need to open carry.
The victims perspective? The motherfucker is dead!!
Obey laws and go to school?! That'll learn em…
These pussy liberal shit charges for violent offenders is inexcusable and unbelievable to me. Lock these pieces of shit up and free the 40,000 people still incarcerated on weed offenses.
Is the requirement to be born in the USA as literal as it sounds or does it make allowances for being born abroad to American parents, but moved to the US after a matter of days/weeks? I assume there's some wriggle room there.
By Hitch Go To PostIs the requirement to be born in the USA as literal as it sounds or does it make allowances for being born abroad to American parents, but moved to the US after a matter of days/weeks? I assume there's some wriggle room there.You don’t have to be born in US. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and lived there for first 3 years but he is eligible because his mother is a US citizen.
By Hitch Go To PostIs the requirement to be born in the USA as literal as it sounds or does it make allowances for being born abroad to American parents, but moved to the US after a matter of days/weeks? I assume there's some wriggle room there.You don't have to be born in the US or a bunch of military brats and diplomats kids would be SOL. If you're born to a US citizen you're fine.
I mean for the natural born US citizen thingy that FF posted earlier. Does that even have any legal bearing for any office?
It means someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger can't be prez but he can be something like governor, as he was.
You have to be born of US citizens or an anchor baby so to speak.
You have to be born of US citizens or an anchor baby so to speak.
As a teacher, it’s been particularly soul-destroying the last day or two hearing all of this. Luckily we fared better than a lot, but still having kids that didn’t get their first choices is gut wrenching.
Been so angry.
Been so angry.
Will write an explainer for those not in the know:
A-level results are the ones that dictate whether you go to university (and GCSE results dictate A-level/college choices, due next week). This year, as all exams were cancelled, the government asked all teachers to give a CAG (centre assessed grade) for the students. This was primarily asked to be an indicator of what they would most likely have achieved this summer if they had sat The exam, using data such as assessments and mock exams to help.
So for arguments’ sake, let’s say I have 25 kids, who I predict as:
- 2 A*s
- 8 As
- 8 Bs
- 6 Cs
- 1 D
However, it wasn’t as simple as that. What we also had to do was factor in previous results as à school, as well as individual and cohort data from KS2 (so 5/7 years ago). Now this year’s cohort is historically weaker than the previous year’s (again, based on data from 7 years ago), and last year I only got 7 As (but got 3A*s). So I’ve hedged my bets and given one more A in lieu of a better grade.
What I then needed to do was rank the students, so my two A* students are 1 and 2, and then I’d need to rank my As between 3-10. But due to the standardisation model which then has to conform to a national plot graph of results based on the last few years that says there must be X amount of A* students, X amount of A students, etc., those students who I’ve placed at 9/10 stand a very real chance of dropping to a B, despite my professional judgement as a teacher indicating they will get an A.
Now, we did okay. We had 18% of our students downgraded as opposed to 39% nationwide. But who this really impacts is incredible students, A*/A kids who have been getting those all year long in coursework and mocks, who go to historically weak schools in which this student is a rank outlier. If I’m a kid doing English at a school which has NEVER got an A, then the chances of me getting one is minuscule. They’ll look at past data from the school more so than the actual student’s achievements over the time of the course, and probably downgrade it to a B based on the last few years of data as opposed to this one exceptional student.
It’s classism writ large for the entire nation. Independent schools have got away with bettee grades due to lack of empirical data, smaller class sizes and cohorts, while large comprehensives have been shafted because they take in more kids from more economically deprived backgrounds so the kids who truly do shine in those circumstances are paying for it. And there is still no understanding of what an appeals process looks like, except for the fact that students can either resit in the autumn (when they may be juggling new uni/A-level material on top of revising past content) or, in Scotland’s case, using mock results (which is sometimes only based on half the course).
A-level results are the ones that dictate whether you go to university (and GCSE results dictate A-level/college choices, due next week). This year, as all exams were cancelled, the government asked all teachers to give a CAG (centre assessed grade) for the students. This was primarily asked to be an indicator of what they would most likely have achieved this summer if they had sat The exam, using data such as assessments and mock exams to help.
So for arguments’ sake, let’s say I have 25 kids, who I predict as:
- 2 A*s
- 8 As
- 8 Bs
- 6 Cs
- 1 D
However, it wasn’t as simple as that. What we also had to do was factor in previous results as à school, as well as individual and cohort data from KS2 (so 5/7 years ago). Now this year’s cohort is historically weaker than the previous year’s (again, based on data from 7 years ago), and last year I only got 7 As (but got 3A*s). So I’ve hedged my bets and given one more A in lieu of a better grade.
What I then needed to do was rank the students, so my two A* students are 1 and 2, and then I’d need to rank my As between 3-10. But due to the standardisation model which then has to conform to a national plot graph of results based on the last few years that says there must be X amount of A* students, X amount of A students, etc., those students who I’ve placed at 9/10 stand a very real chance of dropping to a B, despite my professional judgement as a teacher indicating they will get an A.
Now, we did okay. We had 18% of our students downgraded as opposed to 39% nationwide. But who this really impacts is incredible students, A*/A kids who have been getting those all year long in coursework and mocks, who go to historically weak schools in which this student is a rank outlier. If I’m a kid doing English at a school which has NEVER got an A, then the chances of me getting one is minuscule. They’ll look at past data from the school more so than the actual student’s achievements over the time of the course, and probably downgrade it to a B based on the last few years of data as opposed to this one exceptional student.
It’s classism writ large for the entire nation. Independent schools have got away with bettee grades due to lack of empirical data, smaller class sizes and cohorts, while large comprehensives have been shafted because they take in more kids from more economically deprived backgrounds so the kids who truly do shine in those circumstances are paying for it. And there is still no understanding of what an appeals process looks like, except for the fact that students can either resit in the autumn (when they may be juggling new uni/A-level material on top of revising past content) or, in Scotland’s case, using mock results (which is sometimes only based on half the course).
The best school I went to pre-university was ranked below average. At my secondary school, 5 A*-C GCSE was achieved by around 24% of students whereas nationally it was around 65% on average.
By JesalR Go To PostFull time bullshit.Shows a real lack of ambition doesn't it?
It's on those kids though, they should have just been born richer
By FortuneFaded Go To Postn8, how does your school rank nationally on average?
Very very highly. I work at a grammar. I’m a comp kid who swore off ever going to them as a student and working at one as a trainee lol, but got put here on placement and loved it, the department, the kids, the focus on pastoral work etc. We have a lot of kids come from poorer areas, a lot of black kids, we’re primarily sri-lankan/asian demographic so while yes the grammar system is shit, we’re not entirely the worst out there for privilege.
I think last I knew we were one of the top 10/15 in the country, so our grades were less impacted than others. But i’m a socialist at heart m7; for the many, not the few and all that. Would rather we didn’t give out any grades whatsoever this year and showed some empathy as colleges and unis and accepted everyone.
By n8 dogg Go To PostVery very highly. I work at a grammar. I’m a comp kid who swore off ever going to them as a student and working at one as a trainee lol, but got put here on placement and loved it, the department, the kids, the focus on pastoral work etc. We have a lot of kids come from Croydon, a lot of black kids, we’re primarily sri-lankan/asian demographic so while yes the grammar system is shit, we’re not entirely the worst out there for privilege.hmm
I think last I knew we were one of the top 10/15 in the country, so our grades were less impacted than others. But i’m a socialist at heart m7; for the many, not the few and all that. Would rather we didn’t give out any grades whatsoever this year and showed some empathy as colleges and unis and accepted everyone.
edit: actually probably better to keep your employer a secret
By n8 dogg Go To PostWill write an explainer for those not in the know:It's not that different here tbh.
A-level results are the ones that dictate whether you go to university (and GCSE results dictate A-level/college choices, due next week). This year, as all exams were cancelled, the government asked all teachers to give a CAG (centre assessed grade) for the students. This was primarily asked to be an indicator of what they would most likely have achieved this summer if they had sat The exam, using data such as assessments and mock exams to help.
So for arguments’ sake, let’s say I have 25 kids, who I predict as:
- 2 A*s
- 8 As
- 8 Bs
- 6 Cs
- 1 D
However, it wasn’t as simple as that. What we also had to do was factor in previous results as à school, as well as individual and cohort data from KS2 (so 5/7 years ago). Now this year’s cohort is historically weaker than the previous year’s (again, based on data from 7 years ago), and last year I only got 7 As (but got 3A*s). So I’ve hedged my bets and given one more A in lieu of a better grade.
What I then needed to do was rank the students, so my two A* students are 1 and 2, and then I’d need to rank my As between 3-10. But due to the standardisation model which then has to conform to a national plot graph of results based on the last few years that says there must be X amount of A* students, X amount of A students, etc., those students who I’ve placed at 9/10 stand a very real chance of dropping to a B, despite my professional judgement as a teacher indicating they will get an A.
Now, we did okay. We had 18% of our students downgraded as opposed to 39% nationwide. But who this really impacts is incredible students, A*/A kids who have been getting those all year long in coursework and mocks, who go to historically weak schools in which this student is a rank outlier. If I’m a kid doing English at a school which has NEVER got an A, then the chances of me getting one is minuscule. They’ll look at past data from the school more so than the actual student’s achievements over the time of the course, and probably downgrade it to a B based on the last few years of data as opposed to this one exceptional student.
It’s classism writ large for the entire nation. Independent schools have got away with bettee grades due to lack of empirical data, smaller class sizes and cohorts, while large comprehensives have been shafted because they take in more kids from more economically deprived backgrounds so the kids who truly do shine in those circumstances are paying for it. And there is still no understanding of what an appeals process looks like, except for the fact that students can either resit in the autumn (when they may be juggling new uni/A-level material on top of revising past content) or, in Scotland’s case, using mock results (which is sometimes only based on half the course).
The exception overall are our Abitur graduates. They got grades better than the average of the last two years, but this got a number of reasons.
Germany got different schools systems and besides the grades, alot of companies and professions actually need the completion of a certain schoolform. To be able to study you have to complete the Gymnasium, which is the highest form of school education. You'll graduate either with Abitur or Fachabitur. The different is mostly within the length, difficulty and for the latter you don't need a second language besides English.
For the finals it's stuff from the last 4 semesters. Some material will get refreshed over time and you've got a rather narrowed down focus.
Teachers get a specific focus on literature that could be part of it, so you'll know what might be part of it. You can also choose within the exam, at least in written exams. Build ups for the languages are usually quite similar. Poems, literature, non-fictional texts that could be alot of things, but due the narrowed down focus you know what to expect.
When I graduated back in the day, I've had the following topics.
English had the focus on some classics, newer stuff that was mainly tied to Murica, and analyzing political speeches (I had the honor of analyzing David Cameron xd )
German was quite similar, a bit more difficult since it was the advanced course. Literature mainly pre and post WWII tied to specific topics . Alot of poems and a non fictional text.
In biology in the advanced course you were also able to pick. In my case I had the nitrogen cycle, dna structure and reproduction.
Anyway, to get back to my point. Since you're always refreshing alot of the stuff that you've learned in order to be able to answer every topic that might occur in the finals, it helps quite a bit. Think that's one of the factors that massively helped those graduates to get actual good grades.
Another point is the timing, since their exams are usually a bit earlier and they were nearly done with learning for their exams. So they were able to learn at home with a solid foundation.
Compared to other schoolforms that are mainly focusing on material from the last semester and where they need every minute until the summer holidays start, it's just a massive disadvantage. The Abitur graduates did well, while the drop off in other school forms was quite noticeable.
On top off the schools and digitalisation is just a joke. Schools are already struggling hard with their budgets. Alot of teachers got little to no competence with digital learning. There are no structures and alot of question marks all around. Those who can't afford a decent setup for their children got no chance of catching up. .
Have there been any good suggestions on how the UK grades (or other nations) should have been awarded?
By sohois Go To PostHave there been any good suggestions on how the UK grades (or other nations) should have been awarded?
I think the issue seems to be overall that the weighting of previous school results is having more impact than individual teacher prediction. I know that we would all have our biases when it comes to the kids we teach, but I can hand on heart say we all sat in that room and were clear-headed, objective, and based our final predictions on the work of the students in our classes over the course's duration, including mocks, assessment and progress made.
What we're hampered by is a number of bureaucratic obstacles:
• Firstly, the fact that our value added (i.e. the progress that we as a school - not to mention their own work - help them to make over time) is based on KS2 data from Year 7 onwards, so instead of you coming back and 'adding value' every year so it builds upon itself, you're still going to be judged at the end of KS4 on what they've come to your school with five years' previous. That's a bigger issue than the current furore, but still impacts what we can predict our students to get and what'll be taken into account come the end of their time; I am asked in Year 7 to 'predict' what a kid will get in five years' time, and can't massively deviate from that even if this student makes outstanding progress because it's deemed unrealistic based on years-old data. It'd be like making a derogatory bid for Adama Traore based on what he did at Aston Villa.
• Secondly, the reliance on school data itself. Of course you can use prior results to gauge roughly what a school would get every year; but it doesn't allow for outlier students, or cohorts, or turnover in staff, or widespread changes in exam moderators and markers who all have their own biases, or lean fairly harshly or generously in regards to their marking. And it would be ridiculous to ask a statistical approach to do that, but then when we're playing with something as delicate and fragile as a 16/18-year-old's future, I think a little emotion and empathy is probably the better approach.
• Thirdly is this notion of over-inflating grades being a huge concern. The reason this is bandied about so much is because the government believe that the primary purpose of education is to ensure that everyone gets good jobs. I am not of that opinion. Education is to broaden your horizons, to shape who you are as a person and a thinker, to teach you morals and systems so you can challenge and critique them, to instil in you passions and desires and all of that arty-farty wanky panky stuff. The argument is that over-inflating a student's grades leads to them being misinformed about what course they can take at university, or what career path they can follow because they might now believe they can be dentists due to generous teacher predictions is far more appealing to me than telling a student they can't be a dentist because students four years ago didn't get the grades to be dentists. And what does a good job mean? I take it to mean they want everyone to work in STEM or the financial sector or be police officers or doctors or (lo and behold) teachers. What if someone who takes philosophy and believes in a nihilistic world view makes their lot with working in an Asda because they want their live to not have arbitrary and societally-defined 'meaning'? Has their education become worthless? What if someone really enjoyed music at school and wanted to be a rock star but ended up working in an Asda anyway? Has their education become worthless?
• And fourthly, teacher predictions don't really seem to have been considered! They haven't really taken into account the two-year course, they've just looked at past data and decided that these students shouldn't get an A or B or whatever it may be. Let's say I had two kids who I predicted an A, who over the course of the year have come out with the same rank mark; one did better in their coursework, another did better in Post-2000 poetry, one did better at the prose and one the plays, but they each have 142/200 over the course of the year. I HAVE to rank one above the other in terms of probability they'll get an A, even if I believe they are equal. And if one is unlucky enough to be one more student getting an A this year than last, or the year before, despite someone who got an A last year getting it with a score of 132/200 (because grade boundaries move), then they will more than likely be moved down to a B.
Personally, I would have been in favour with not awarding any grades whatsoever, and all sixth forms and colleges being lenient to pretty much all students who wanted to return/join, numbers permitting, and all universities also relaxing their criteria - with concessions made for teacher predictions or concerns. Give no grades to any student attempting to get into a sixth form, they get given the benefit of the doubt and two years to prove they can get some A-Levels. Give no grades to any student who has applied for university, but their professional predictions alone act as their assessment criteria, again provided the university has the numbers to account for them.
I suppose one could argue something like, would a student who hasn't proven he got A*/A*/A really thrive at Oxford or Cambridge? It seems to me that a teacher saying 'yes they would do brilliantly and would have proven the case this summer' is a lot fairer than a computer saying 'well this outstanding student goes to a school where no one has ever been to Oxford or Cambridge so they can have some Bs instead'. But we wouldn't be saying 'everyone apply to Oxbridge' willy-nilly; it would be those who have already applied, those whose teachers' professional predictions back up the entry criteria, and quite frankly considering the financial black hole universities are going to find themselves in I'm fairly stunned they haven't followed suit. I get that a large swathe of them want to pick people up through clearing so rely on students not getting the grades they wanted, but that is a fairer scenario altogether (as fair as one or two exams at the end of a two-year course determining your future is anyway...)
I thought these were interesting reads:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/14/punishment-by-statistics-the-father-who-foresaw-a-level-algorithm-flaws
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53764313
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/14/welcome-to-gavin-williamsons-disasterclass-where-incompetence-is-core-curriculum
As we say in human resources: a tie goes to the candidate with the palest complexion and school with the biggest marketing budget.
By n8 dogg Go To PostAlways amuses me that Prince Harry had one of the best educations money can buy in the world and ended up with a B in Art and a D in Geography.
is it ironic or plainly telling? lol
its either a non issue being overdramatized to hell and back or its working as intended
its either a non issue being overdramatized to hell and back or its working as intended
Have to respect their willingness to try and win at all costs. They're so good at the game of politics because they fully understand just how stupid the average person is that they have to govern in this country.
And their opposition is so shit that you have to assume that they're complicit.
And their opposition is so shit that you have to assume that they're complicit.
By DY_nasty Go To Postis it ironic or plainly telling? lol
its either a non issue being overdramatized to hell and back or its working as intended
Not sure we’ll know it’s a real issue until it is, ya know.
I’ll say this, I don’t think these moves by trump’s postmaster general are purely coincidental with regards to election timing. I definitely don’t think that map coincidentally shows key election states being affected. That’s enough reasons to assume the issue is real and potentially scary. In that respect, I wish Dems were as loud
Nate brought up a point. The louder people are, the less likely it has an impact because people can plan around it
By Fenderputty Go To PostNot sure we’ll know it’s a real issue until it is, ya know.things that are really popping out like that show up immediately imo
I’ll say this, I don’t think these moves by trump’s postmaster general are purely coincidental with regards to election timing. I definitely don’t think that map coincidentally shows key election states being affected. That’s enough reasons to assume the issue is real and potentially scary. In that respect, I wish Dems were as loud
Nate brought up a point. The louder people are, the less likely it has an impact because people can plan around it
if mail infrastructure was truly coming off the rails, too many businesses would be losing money and lives would be altered for it to be limited to just the presidential election. americans barely vote anyways. i feel there is some truth about the friction of an internal shift within the post office, and trump also can't stfu about anything, but the gravity of a wholesale shift in post office functionality would be felt immediately and in all sectors. for all we know they're getting ready for black friday x stimulus check 2 day lmao
and as a group, the democrats would rather have their base angry than confident anyways. its always the same brand of sloppy too
By GQman2121 Go To PostHave to respect their willingness to try and win at all costs. They're so good at the game of politics because they fully understand just how stupid the average person is that they have to govern in this country.none of this should be hard. it takes regular mental gymnastics to believe that these people are rendered utterly powerless to trump and are blindsided by any of his efforts
And their opposition is so shit that you have to assume that they're complicit.
I mean, this motherfucker DeJoy has business holdings with the USPS sub-contractors and Amazon. By definition that's a conflict and should rule him out from the job.
That's like Jerry Jones drafting for the Eagles and then acting surprised by the results.
That's like Jerry Jones drafting for the Eagles and then acting surprised by the results.
By DY_nasty Go To Postthings that are really popping out like that show up immediately imo
if mail infrastructure was truly coming off the rails, too many businesses would be losing money and lives would be altered for it to be limited to just the presidential election. americans barely vote anyways. i feel there is some truth about the friction of an internal shift within the post office, and trump also can't stfu about anything, but the gravity of a wholesale shift in post office functionality would be felt immediately and in all sectors. for all we know they're getting ready for black friday x stimulus check 2 day lmao
and as a group, the democrats would rather have their base angry than confident anyways. its always the same brand of sloppy too
none of this should be hard. it takes regular mental gymnastics to believe that these people are rendered utterly powerless to trump and are blindsided by any of his efforts
It doesn’t need to be that obvious to shake an election tho. The margins were THIN af in 2016
By Fenderputty Go To PostIt doesn’t need to be that obvious to shake an election tho. The margins were THIN af in 2016because of self imposed damage, yeah
and the dems still won't even hold that either
By DY_nasty Go To Postbecause of self imposed damage, yeah
and the dems still won't even hold that either
What does any of this have to do with thin margins and mail Fuckery being a potential problem with thin margins? 🤷♂️