God knows, dude, it was your analogy. If you want to argue that 6th grade literacy is a bullshit stat that shouldn't be relevant to college admissions, knock yourself out.
Yes, I'd argue that "literacy" that doesn't allow one to use a spell-checker is a bullshit stat that should not be relevant to college admissions.
Because by that metric, the commenter I was responding to would be deemed "illiterate" and not worthy of being admitted to college (in spite of being able to express their thoughts more clearly than most).
Again, I have a PhD in mathematics, and have taught college-level math 2010-2017.
I have taught hundreds of students (if not thousands), and have seen many of them hindered by bullshit stats like that in mathematics.
Mathematics in particular is an incredibly diverse field; yet people with dyscalculia feel that they "can't do math" — even though so much math has nothing to do with numbers or calculation, and would be accessible to them (had we only been allowed to teach it).
As it stands, we are judging fish by their ability to climb trees.
Now, you are free to have your own opinion (knock yourself out), but please have some respect for my experience in the field, if nothing else. I'm speaking as an educator.
And the above is something that many, many educators are well aware of, but feel powerless to change.
If you have qualified objections (i.e. based on something more than you just thinking that way), I'm all ears.
> Yes, I'd argue that "literacy" that doesn't allow one to use a spell-checker is a bullshit stat that should not be relevant to college admissions.
Your focus on your own 'experience' appears to be blinding you to the topic at hand, which does not involve spell checkers. Perhaps does not cover the area of literacy and how it is assessed?
>Your focus on your own 'experience' appears to be blinding you to the topic at hand, which does not involve spell checkers. Perhaps does not cover the area of literacy and how it is assessed?
You joined the thread well after its topic was set in place, and, frankly, I don't know what you think the topic is.
The comment I was responding to did specifically involve spell checkers; did you miss it?
Your last sentence seems to be missing a subject.
And if you thoroughly read the originally submitted Wikipedia article, you'll find out that:
* The notion of literacy (in the language sense) includes reading
as well as writing (particularly, as assessed by NAEP). In fact, any notion of literacy mentions the ability to read and write.
* The notion of literacy, as assesed by NAAL, also includes quantitative literacy (something I have expertise in)
* The issue of (lack of) equity in literacy assessment has been particularly highlighted in the Wiki article
* Spell-checker is a way to achieve equity in writing assessments for people suffering from dyslexia
The commentor I was responding to would be deemed "illiterate" by these assessments for not remembering how to spell words like "through". Yet that person has very clearly demonstrated that they don't struggle with either understanding other people's points, nor clearly expressing their own.
Something that can't be said of most (ostensibly literate) people even on this forum, sadly.
>Perhaps does not cover the area of literacy and how it is assessed?
No, he would not be called illiterate by these assessments. That is why spell checkers are irrelevant to the utility of 6th grade literacy in college admissions.
Solid reading comprehension should allow you to make a reasonable guess at the intended value of the missing noun; it was "experience". I am not enjoying the experience of discussing literacy assessment with someone who has vastly overestimated their knowledge of the topic, so I will not continue.
>Solid reading comprehension should allow you to make a reasonable guess at the intended value of the missing noun
I didn't say I didn't understand your point; just that clarity wasn't there (due to the sentence being ungrammatical). Quite ironic in a thread discussing literacy.
>No, he would not be called illiterate by these assessments.
This is a claim. For the benefit of the people reading this thread, would you please provide the basis for such a claim?
To be more specific, the claim implies that ability to spell is not measured by "these assessments" (which ones, specifically?).
The Wikipedia article indicates otherwise (as described in my previous comment), so everyone would benefit from learning about what your words are based on.
>I am not enjoying the experience [...], so I will not continue.
On the note of clarity in writing, that point could have been expressed in 0 words, by way of not leaving a comment.
In any case, if you're an educator, this is a chance for you to educate people who overestimate their knowledge of the subject.
Also, imagine running 5K being a requirement for admission to college.