Questioning College-Wide Assessments

Original Article - see comment by Bob at State U

Summary goes here!

I am in the opinion that the testing service companies should work harder to have employers back them up in using their tests. After all, it is employers that fulfill the value bill - in a realistic way.

Industries had complained the quality of institution graduates with vague (a.k.a critical thinking) specifications without following through with specific skill requirement in terms of how they think it can be evaluated. The reason, of cause, can well be that evaluation of these high level skills is not their expertise. On the other hand, evaluating skill is what testing companies do.

I think if industries is really serious about their concern, they should work with testing companies to further define their needs. Without well defined goals, no one can efficiently reach the goal.

*If industries don't really know what they mean by 'critical thinking', I think all these are just FUD.

============== drafts
Testing industry should work with employers to create tests that employers will use to hire. The testing industry at this point is trying to sell it to education sectors in the view that people involved in education are more care about education. But the truth is that test created this way may not directly serve the employers' need.

My vision on this is for testing industry to work with employers in creating test that will be used by employers to hire. If this do happen than it's really not matter what it is measuring. Just imaging that the high score on those test do get hired in high proportion, institutions/departments that turn out high score will get parents/students' attention.

All organizations are serving the public. Institutions is of no differences. They serve publics' need. Parents and students is a big part of the public that institution serve. There are others that institutions serve. The basic idea, however, is that institutions will get their share of the revenue for the part they serve. Institutions can teach what ever they want but if what they teach is of no value to students (a.k.a the job), I doubt they should derive their revenue from students. This does not force professors to give up their researches, it simply means that they should derive their revenue from research grant.

All organizations exist to serve the public. Higher Ed institutions is of no difference. They serve publics' need. Parents and students is a big part of the public that institution serves. There are others that institutions serve too. The basic idea, however, is that institutions will get their share of the revenue for the part they serve. For example, researcher could and should derive their revenue from grant which can be sponsored by federal, institution or state legislature.

Instructors should derive their revenues from the things they teach which is valued by students and eventually valued by employers.

Institutions can teach what ever they want but if what they teach is of no value to students (a.k.a the job), I doubt they should derive their revenue from students. This does not force professors to give up their researches, it simply means that they should derive their revenue from research grant.

Institutions have claimed that they provided valuable 'critical thinking' training for their students. But like pointed out by ... the real value haven't been very convincing yet. As we all know the claimed value isn't as real as a proved value. If industries willing to bet their money on those claim, it will really show the value of it.