What is the best form of assessment?

I have been in school for quite some years now, and I have been exposed to many, many different forms of assessment: tests, quizzes, papers, projects, presentations, and even laboratories. Having been doing all of these for so many years, I have been thinking a bit...what is the BEST form of assessment?

Personally, I believe that the best form of assessment is a toss between non-multiple-choice tests and essays. The reason I say non-multiple-choice tests is because, in many cases, multiple-choice tests are nothing but tricks; they don't assess your knowledge, but they assess your ability to memorize really in-depth details. Free response tests are generally more broad but at the same time can be challenging. Also, in terms of essays, it is really important to take a rational stance and support your claims with evidence in an organized manner. Making an argument is a great form of assessment, to see how well the student can support what he/she is saying.

In many cases for projects, the more time spent is directly correlated with the overall grade. There have been projects on which I have spent hours on end and, consequently, received a good grade. Projects embrace creativity and can be very tedious. Although some people think that they are fun, I do not believe that these are the best form of assessment. Presentations are a nice way to introduce a certain topic (i.e., give a presentation on photosynthesis before you start studying it), but generally do not take as much thought as essays.

What do you think?

Were the Copenhagen climate talks a success or a failure?

I was thinking a little bit about the Copenhagen climate talks and their outcome. They were more prevalent in the news a few months ago, but some people still value their importance. These talks raised many controversial viewpoints from both Democrats and Republicans. Were the Copenhagen climate talks a success or a failure?

Personally, I believe that they were a failure. For one, they did not unite the two parties; it is even arguable that they split them apart even farther. Many Republicans believe that the statistics given on "global warming" were fudged; in fact, professors and scientists at a university in the United Kingdom have been researching the "global warming" facts presented to assess their validity because they are doubtful. This led to a sense of mistrust, the opposite of the initial goal of the talks. Additionally, the talks did not unite different countries together; they did just the opposite. According to the Financial Times, dated December 4, 2009, the environmental minister of India noted that he wants to improve the environment only for India's own self-interest. He said, "Forget Copenhagen. Forget the United States". Undoubtedly, he does not want to collaborate with other nations.

What do you think?

Should Blacks Be Given Reparations?

Yesterday in American Studies we discussed the whole concept of "reparations." I learned that reparations are not necessarily monetary. I found this subject very interesting and gave it some more thought.

My personal intake is that blacks should NOT be given monetary reparations. Would the point of giving them monetary reparations be to "pay off our guilt" (give them money to make us feel less guilty), or to actually help them? You see, the first possibility is to simply give them money so that we don't feel guilty anymore. Personally, I believe that this is an insincere way to apologize. For instance, if you get into a fight with your friend and really hurt his/her feelings, you don't just buy him/her a gift to make up for what you did wrong. The second possibility is to try to help the blacks in America by giving them reparations. Although this is good intent, I do not believe that it would end up working out as one may expect. Look at all of the welfare programs - I have not seen a ton of people benefit from these.

Slavery is a horrible aspect of our nation's history, and it should never be forgotten. But I believe that there are other ways to make it up to black Americans that don't involve giving them money. I have seen many benefits from affirmative action, for example. I also believe that slavery should be taught in schools and that museums should be made in recognition of slavery (like the Holocaust). This should raise people's awareness of the evil ways that blacks were treated and should hopefully stop the racism to a degree.

What do you think?

Is the US auto industry dead?

Over the last few months, many newspapers and journals have been shifting their focus to America's auto industry. There have been studies relating to costs, benefits, profits, etc. for each American car company (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler). At the peak of the recession, General Motors and Chrysler were really down in the dumps and accepted government money, but Ford was always relatively strong and rejected any aid from the government. All of this raises the question, is the US auto industry dead?

Personally, I believe that the answer is NO. I have seen immense improvement in Ford (who wasn't even that bad to begin with) and especially GM. For one, according to the Wall Street Journal, Ford has lowered the cost of many of its vehicles, which has led to more cars being bought. Ford clearly understands that in such a recession people don't want to spend so much unnecessary money on a car. Consequently (and also according to the Wall Street Journal), Ford's annual profit for the year 2009 was $2.7 billion, compared to a LOSS of $14.7 billion the previous year. Wow! Ford's great techniques have really helped them! Additionally, GM has really improved, especially due to the fact that just last week they finally sold Saab to Spyker (a Dutch sportsmaker). According to the Financial Times, this trade resulted in GM obtaining $74 million up front, as well as $326 million in preferred shares. This money can really help General Motors. Also, many people refer to Buicks as "old people cars." Well, Buick was aware of this and, in order to gain more customers, has recently changed the design of many of its cars. For instance, they have made the new Lacrosse and Lucerne as European-looking sports sedans. Now, which is more appealing to the average American family, an "old person's car" or a European-looking sports sedan? I'd go with the sedan. This change in design has additionally helped GM, Buick specifically, gain more publicity.

What do you think?