I Can't Answer Standardized Test Questions About My Own Poems (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-are-so-bad-i-cant-answer-these_b_586d5517e4b0c3539e80c341 <comment><USER3> I always though how silly it was for teachers to pretend they got the correct answer in a text analysis of a century old author. Apparently it's even true for authors that are still alive.

Some things seemed so far fetched, so random, so made up. And yet it was supposed to be _the_ right answer. When I offered another one, even knowing the official one but disagreeing, I was graded as failing.

Hell, I'm pretty certain most writers just wrote something, and never though about it more. Not all of them are pondering, rewriting every line. And even the ones that do don't necessarily do it for the result the teacher expects.

And as a kid, you certainly can't say a classic author is not interesting. You can't say the text is boring, that you don't see talent in it, that you didn't learn anything from it. It has been validated by society, hence it's good. Now you have to say why you think it is, even if you don't. Actually you have to say what you know what the status quo is, which means repeating something you read elsewhere instead of forming a opinion from that and what you think. The opposite of what's school is supposed to teach.

We wonder why fake news and bullshit work ? It's because we teach kids to repeat popular opinions and make up things because they look good. We teach them that not only there is a price to pay for not doing that, but that we are ok with being the ones making them pay it.

People that felt like that usually went the science road. It's not a bad thing, but it's a positive feedback loop. It means fields in desperate needs of honesty and pragmatism are only welcoming bullshiters and conformists.

<comment><USER4> Those classes are all about conformity. It's about learning how to play the game of life and not going against the grain. "smart students" learn to read their teachers and know how to feedback the expected answers even if they don't agree or believe in it. A lesson that's very much needed in life.

A lot have not learned this lesson and this is why many of us on this site still marvel at the bullshit companies raising millions and wondering HTF! Because those "smart founders" learned how to feed BS that their audience expected back to them.

I learned this lesson when I took humanities, it was so stupid, but I knew exactly what the teacher wanted to hear when we studied architectures & paintings. It was all subjective and her own opinion. I fed her back her crap and I passed the class.

If you haven't learned this yet, it's not too late. The world is full on chicken shit.

<comment><USER5> "... are all about conformity."

You give them too much credit, imo. That would be way to clever, too much 'conspiracy'-like.

But, I agree that if you go against the grain, confront their bs... you're toast.

<comment><USER6> Nothing to do with conspiracies, just human nature filtered through the "never enough time or money to do it well" conditions.

There are some awesome educators out there who can inspire their students to think and explore the world.

There are far too many more who assemble a syllabus of their own viewpoint and expect their students to just absorb it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article is fun to read. Incidentally, my daughter just took a test for a gifted program. She didn't study for it as recommended by our school district. She scored 95% in one subject. But the qualified cut-off rate is 98%!

My eyes just rolled looking at that number. That means they only pick 98 and 99 percentiles. For a first grader to score that high, she needs to answer the exam perfectly. If you have some statistics training, you'll see this score is like shooting yourself in the foot. You're more likely selecting prepared test takers than gifted students.

I congratulated my daughter on her score. We went out for dinner and got tasty pastries for dessert. Life is too short to waste our time on these dumb tests.

<comment><USER8> I was in the gifted program when I was in elementary school and I don't recommend it. It took a kid like me who was already prone to social isolation and isolated him further. I voluntarily left the program after 2 years and was playing catch up socially and I wasn't any better off academically. Don't put your kids in that program.

<comment><USER9> I think there's a right and a wrong way to run these programs. Some schools just pick a couple of outliers and make it obvious they're outliers. If you're going to group some kids by ability for some classes, do it to everyone. Yes, a few kids are really advanced. A few others are almost there. Don't make the first group so uniquely isolated at the expenses of making the second group miss out on similar opportunities entirely. I see the benefit of keeping everyone together some of the time, but I'm screaming inside when I see my daughter reading at a 3rd grade level next to kids who still don't know the alphabet, and her teacher has to keep them all in one big reading group. She has an alternative but it's strictly an addition to all her other work: which is how it was for me, so I got A's in the gifted program, and D's in my regular school work because it seemed pointless and stupid. My high school was only told about the D's so it took me 2 years to get back into Honors classes. Whoever designed that program was not _gifted_.

Let everyone spend some time grouped by ability. Don't just burden them with more busy work. And please make sure the teachers running special programs have a clue what they're doing to kids...

edit: Furthermore, I always thought it pathetic that I went from being a very average student in 2 other countries, moved to America and was suddenly seen as a gifted genius who was years ahead of my peers in math and science. I've obviously never seen it that way - I think kids are capable of for more than the American school system expects of them, but their intellectual growth is being stunted at a very young age.

<comment><USER10> There is one more thing that is important that most people miss: a "gifted" student (whatever that means) mixed in with the rest challenges the other students to do better.

<comment><USER11> Do you support putting intellectually challenged students with the rest to encourage them to do better?

<comment><USER10> That is a complex question that cannot be answered as a one size fits all. "intellectually challenged" can mean many different things. In some cases yes - it is good for the "smart" kids to learn to deal with the "stupid". In some cases no, the "stupid" just hold back the "smart". Note that this is all levels, the above average student sometimes needs to be at a lower level than the very smartest, and sometimes together.

There is a difference between subjects as well. I've been in choir with some "intellectually challenged" kids who had great voices: I was the one being challenged.

<comment><USER11> I was looking for a kinder way to phrase it, but someone with an intellectual disability. Someone with an IQ in the range of 35 - 50.

You're trying to waffle. Have your cake and eat it too.

If you can recognize the fact that there are times when you're just holding back some students, then propping up a gifted student in a normal class to "inspire" the rest is doing a disservice to that gifted student.

We aren't talking about children who are simply "smart", we're talking about children who are so far beyond their peers, it's clearly noticeable. It's the opposite end of the bell curve. Because we're talking about children who are testing at 135 or above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Former US poet laureate Billy Collins wrote a poem about this sort of thing:

The Effort

      Would anyone care to join me
      in flicking a few pebbles in the direction
      of teachers who are fond of asking the question:
      "What is the poet trying to say?"

      as if Thomas Hardy and Emily Dickinson
      had struggled but ultimately failed in their efforts—
      inarticulate wretches that they were,
      biting their pens and staring out the window for a clue.

      Yes, it seems that Whitman, Amy Lowell
      and the rest could only try and fail
      but we in Mrs. Parker's third-period English class
      here at Springfield High will succeed

      with the help of these study questions
      in saying what the poor poet could not,
      and we will get all this done before
      that orgy of egg salad and tuna fish known as lunch.

It continues on for a few more stanzas; consider purchasing a copy of Ballistics for the full poem. The rest of the book is filled with memorable insights as well.

<comment><USER13> Too bad I can't read it because HN quotes suck on mobile and don't work with the brave browser in Android.

@dang fix your mobile css and styling.

<comment><USER14> > Too bad I can't read it because HN quotes suck on mobile

HN quotes are fine on mobile. But, just to be clear, this is how HN does quotes:

"quoted text"

And this is how HN does code blocks

      def this_is(code)
        not_a_quote
      end

HN code blocks abused for long prose quotations suck on mobile (and aren't appealing on desktop, either), but that's abusing code blocks.

<comment><USER15> You'd have a point if the quote in question was a long prose quotation. It isn't; it's a poem and code formatting is often the only way to get poetry to appear reasonable.

<comment><USER14> Code formatting _does not_ get poetry to appear reasonable. That's actually the _whole issue_ being discussed.

On the other hand if you don't like each line spaced as a paragraph, as it would be if you try to keep the line structure I. HN non-code text, you can, on HN, use the same convention used everywhere else that it is impossible, impractical, or undesirable to set poetry while preserving the line structure:

"this is a line of poetry / and this is another line / each separated from the next with / a solidus set with space / on either side."

<comment><USER13> The whole issue being discussed is that HN made a terrible design desicion when they implemented quotes and code styling for Mobile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The whole poem and questions are here: [https://www.jiskha.com/questions/1027961/Midnight-by-Sara- Ho...](https://www.jiskha.com/questions/1027961/Midnight-by-Sara-Holbrook- When-its-Sunday-and-its-midnight-the-weekend-put).

Frankly, I think the author is being a bit disingenuous. Question 5 for example: What function does the stanza break serve? She says she put it where it is because she's a performance poet and thought it should go there. One, that isn't the question. The question isn't asking about the author's subjective state of mind, but to remark on the objective function of the stanza break. The subject of the poem clearly shifts at that point from reflecting on the weekend to talking about the anxiety of the upcoming day. Out of the answers presented, (C) is clearly the best answer. Two, the author's point simply begs the question. The break sounds good there because there is a structural break in the underlying poem. Her subjective impression of where the break should go reflects an objective fact about the structure of the poem.

The other questions are likewise quite straightforward. The website doesn't reproduce the full test booklet, but I suspect the prompt does not ask for the "right answer" but "the best answer out of the choices presented." The test is not asking students to plumb the depths of the author's pscyhe, but evaluate consistency or inconsistency between each answer choice and the objective aspects of the poem. It's not an exercise in literary analysis, it's an exercise in reading (knowing the meaning of words) and logical analysis.

Take Question 6: "The train is important to the poem because it represents..." Who knows what the author _meant_ the train to represent? But to an objective observer, C ("following a planned routine") clearly "fits" the text better than the other answers. That's all the test is asking students to figure out.

<comment><USER17> If you're a good test taker, the answers they want are clear, but that's not the point. The point is that applying this model to art, something which has been essential to the human experience for tens of thousands of years, is a stultification of our culture for no better reason than that we want to measure something.

If the goal of education in a democratic society is to produce an informed, well-rounded electorate then cultivating a relationship with art is as important as an understanding of science. It seems like we're doing something else here though. I would hesitate to dismiss the damage done by a system that produces questions like these at the societal scale.

<comment><USER16> This is a reading test, not an art test. Here, whatever "art" is in the poem, there is also text with plain, objective meaning and discernible structure. The test is directed to the latter, not the former. And that is, by far, the more important thing to teach children. An informed citizenry in a democracy doesn't need art. They do need to be able to convey their thoughts in a structured, clear manner in writing.

<comment> radford-neal If that's the objective, then give them a piece of technical writing, and then ask them whether the nuts should be screwed tight before or after the wooden pieces are put in their slots.

I think we all know why they're using poetry, though. They want to PRETEND to be testing ability at deep literary criticism.

<comment><USER16> These tests also usually include scientific articles that are used to test whether students can figure out basic facts presented in an article. But that's only one part of reading comprehension. Students also must be able to understand the structure of the text, themes, use of devices like metaphors and similes, etc. These are higher-level concepts, but still objective ones. And they are present in all types of writing, not only technical articles. This particular set of questions is directed at evaluating those skills.

The tests don't purported to be "testing ability at deep literary criticism." The kids aren't learning poetry, they're reading poetry to help develop general reading comprehension skills. If you look at the STAARS curriculum for Grade 8, the tested skills include:

> Students understand, make inferences and draw conclusions about the > structure and elements of poetry and provide evidence from text to support > their understanding.

That's _exactly_ what the questions are asking about: the structure and elements of the poem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Perfect example of mistaking measuring for knowing. Everything that can be measured can be known, but not everything that can be known can be measured.

Correct answer to the question about capitalization: "I don't know; neither do you; somebody could trivially ask the poet; regardless it's not really of primary importance; and arguably (postmodernism) the answer is up to me anyway."

<comment><USER19> That's a good analogy. It's really hard to "measure knowledge," and in my humble opinion, as someone who once was a teacher, tests are one of the hardest ways of doing so.

<comment><USER20> > tests are one of the hardest ways of doing so

I've never understood how someone could master a subject and yet be unable to answer any questions about it.

In my experience, people who did well on tests tended to understand the topic, and the people who didn't do well made excuses.

<comment><USER21> It's because tests aren't just testing knowledge. They are testing the ability to express the entirety of that knowledge under completely arbitrary conditions (time limits, schedules, no references, etc.) with outsized consequences for mistakes.

Also good tests are hard to write. I've seen T/F questions that could go either way. Multiple choice questions with more than one correct answer. (Professors will tell you to choose the "best" answer. But that's a matter of opinion in many, if not all, cases.)

I think what someone can DO with their knowledge is more important than what individual bits of knowledge they maintained. I'd rather hire or work with someone who can get things done and knows certain algorithms exist than hire or work with someone who can't get anything done but can recite the same algorithms from memory. Tests favor the second person. (I was that person in HS calculus. Aced the class without understanding a thing just because I have a gift for remembering and applying rules. I had no idea what I was doing.)

<comment><USER22> > Also good tests are hard to write. I've seen T/F questions that could go > either way. Multiple choice questions with more than one correct answer. > (Professors will tell you to choose the "best" answer. But that's a matter > of opinion in many, if not all, cases.)

This is why I am so glad that all of my university exams (and the _vast_ majority of exams before that, at least post-Y9/age 13) were open-ended questions[1], then marked by someone who will (likely) know the subject better than you even will. Even if you couldn't get the the answer, but could understand and articulate the starting points, or made a compelling argument but misread or misunderstood part of the question, you will at least get partial credit. The physics exams would also have a standardised formulae reference sheet.

[1] A typical paper would be three hours, answering 5-6 questions, and a typical subquestion can be as open-ended as "Write brief notes about a tree representation of functional arrays, subscripted by positive integers according to their representation in binary notation. How efficient are the lookup and update operations?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's not the only place in the world where the work (educating students) is jeopardised by the evaluation of that work (tests). Tests in schools are even worse, though, because they conflate 2 completely separate issues: the success of the efforts of the education system and the success of the efforts of the student.

On the other hand, I will say that standardised testing is good at one thing: predicting which students will do well at standardised tests in further schooling. This may sound useless, but if you consider that the education system is what it is, you _can_ help students either get better at the system or choose a different path after their compulsory term is over (like going to a trade school, running a shop, etc, etc).

In my brief stint at teaching English, I always tried to separate the activities of learning English and passing tests in order to progress on to further education. If you just want to learn English, there is _no need_ for evaluation. You don't need to fit it into X years of school. You don't have to hit some arbitrary school board imposed targets. You just have to learn English. IMHO a teacher should always be there to helps students learn (and especially help them learn how to learn by themselves).

However, the other role exists and is arguably more important in the students' school years. You need to help the students align themselves with the careers that they are eventually going to take. That this involves considerable hoop- jumping is very unfortunate, but it is what it is. Students shouldn't confuse being educated with having a high mark on a test.

<comment><USER24> Upvoted specifically for:

 _Students shouldn 't confuse being educated with having a high mark on a test._

It reminds me of one of my favourite quotes, attributed to Mark Twain, but a bit of googling suggests that the attribution is questionable. To paraphrase:

 _Never let schooling interfere with your education._

<comment><USER25> UK Education Act says that children's parents are responsible for their receiving an education.

This has been commuted by the Tory government to "parents are fined if their children are not in school".

I find that very telling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> High school literary criticism is just training for basic interpretation skills. It doesn't matter what's really "in" the poem, just that the student is capable of rudimentary analysis of meaning and symbolism and so on. If they went on to study literary criticism at a higher level with a decent teacher, they'd have to justify their interpretations with reference to the work as a whole, the writer's other work, their influences, the historical period, and other context.

<comment><USER26> This means it is worthless for a multiple choice test and should be a write-up with argumentation. A miniature dissertation.

Like, say, maturity exam is here in Poland. They're a pain to grade, have to be very careful guidelines and alert examiners.

<comment><USER27> I'm sorry, in what world is literature or English multiple choice?!

In Australia / NSW it's essays and essays, including a creative writing prompt that I've always genuinely found fun. Think /r/writingprompts.

Never really engaged with the rest of English but it requires choosing your own texts (no list) to compare and dissect. Still flawed? Yeah, but I feel like 'they tried'.

<comment><USER28> > in what world is literature or English multiple choice?!

If you click on the article, the first thing your eye is drawn to is an image of a multiple-choice scantron bubble-sheet. Its reasonable to think that this image is relevant to the discussion the article presents and to implicitly conclude that the article is describing a multiple-choice test.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I was reminded of this passage from Plato's Apology of Socrates:

"I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them - thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. And the poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise."

So my expectation is that seventh graders would outperform the poet on this exam.

</comment><comment><USER30> It is well accepted within the arts that the authors interpretation should not be considered privileged over the readers. I was taught that interpretations can vary in quality - particularly if they fail to take account of salient features in the work, but there's no particular reason that an artist who may have just created what 'felt right' necessarily understood why it felt so right.

I like to quote Socrates on questions like this:

After I had finished with the politicians I turned to the poets, dramatic, lyric, and all the rest, in the belief that here I should expose myself as a comparative ignorammus. I used to pick up what I thought were some of their most perfect works and question them closely about the meaning of what they had written, in the hope of incidentally enlarging my own knowledge. Well, gentlemen, I hesitate to tell you the truth, but it must be told. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that any of the bystanders could have explained those poems better than their actual authors. So I soon made up my mind about the poets too: I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled them to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean. It seemed clear to me that the poets were in very much the same case; and I also observed that the very fact that they were poets made them think that they had a perfect understanding of all other subjects, of which they were totally ignorant.

— Socrates, quoted by Plato in The Apology of Socrates (translated by Hugh Tredinnick)

</comment><comment><USER31> Funny...

As I write this, the office I work with is abuzz with game of thrones talk. Does Arya fullfil the prophecy. How winter fell to the Starks. If it gets to pints after work it'll be the war of roses, white walkers as a symbol of climate change, dragons as nuclear weapons...

We delve into art we like, insert meaning and extend the stories with our interpretations. Sometimes we hope, imagine or expect that the artist intended it this way. Sometimes we don't. We know this is our own embellishment.

I don't think the stuff the writer is describing is a problem really. It's fine that people understand poems in ways that are unrecognisable to the poet. I think the medium of standardized testing is just awkward applied to metaphorical babble about (possibly) metaphorical art.

You can standardize-test arithmetic, because they's an objective answer.

Poetry & literature classes are about making students engage with stuff. Most teachers won't care if the kids read their own crazy theories into a poem or whatnot.

But... imagine forcing someone who isn't into game of thrones into articulating a metaphorical theory about it. Awkward.

<comment><USER32> Now imagine your boss would grade you on how well you can recite a particular co-worker's GoT interpretation, and cut your paycheck if you get too many things wrong - or if you dared to say you disagree with that interpretation.

This is how humanities in school feel. Being told some arbitrary interpretation is _the_ truth, being forced to learn it, and being tested on it.

<comment><USER33> And yet, when I point out that I find _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ to be a story about a god-like entity that appears, saves the libertarians from their inability to play well with others, and then disappears before we get to ask any questions about its existence, or _The Puppet Masters_ to be tedious (yeah, I get it, commies bad) and to demonstrate that Heinlein wasn't very good at seeing the consequences of his ideas,...I get a lot of crankiness from the same "humanities are about punishing disagreement" people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Maybe I was a jaded student, but I always thought of these questions as a game of answering what I know they want me to answer. These types of questions are obviously dumb, and they shouldn't be included in multiple-choice tests.

<comment><USER35> perhaps I'm even more jaded, but I assumed that was the point of all assessment material and procedures.

of course, this didn't really help me when I was younger, because its taken me almost 30 years to realise practically no one really cared whether assessment was valid or not, just about marks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I think few people probably knows how textbooks are written. Given millions of students spend millions of hours on these textbooks, one would expect there is a great care taken in writing textbooks. This is often not true and it was very well described by Richard Feynman. He was so repulsed by the quality of textbooks that this Nobel prize winning physicist decided to be part of committee. To his surprise, in committee meetings no one came prepared, they often missed meetings and decisions were finally made ad-hoc. He was so frustrated by whole process that (I think) eventually gave up. I suspect similar thing happens in how exams are written. People who write questions aren't often deep thinkers who took at most care but rather low level leaf nodes who happen to have time for doing more work for peanuts.

<comment><USER25> In the UK exams are privatised, you buy the exams from an exam board. They often have massive errors in them and clearly haven't been properly tested - <USER2> used to do mark checking.

500,000+ kids take the papers at £30+ a time. You'd think for £15M you could afford to do things properly; but of course the key metrics are profit/bonus/wages.

Moreover the boards compete in part on making their tests easier, or at least that they give the highest grades. You can't objectively compare students in such a system, it's moronic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> (2017), and original source is located at [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-are-so- bad...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-are-so-bad-i-cant- answer-these_b_586d5517e4b0c3539e80c341)

<comment><USER38> and a nice discussion at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348672](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348672)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> 1\. I think it's generally sort of amusing to see a bunch of STEM oriented people (who generally are less than sympathetic to people who are math or computer illiterate) take the position that the art subjects they probably struggled with are BS

2\. I actually think many creators/authors of art are sometimes least well positioned to describe its cultural implications/significance

3\. As everyone here knows standardized tests are less about the perfect/correct answer, but rather the least bad vs the other choices

<comment><USER40> > I actually think many creators/authors of art are sometimes least well > positioned to describe its cultural implications/significance

Then who is in the best position to describe the art? The test authors?

A better way to judge the students' understanding of literary concepts present in a poem would be to have them describe it however they want, and grade them on how well they can cite evidence for their claims about the author's intention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Standardized tests are designed to serve the needs of the school. Such tests let the teacher and school system assess multiple students efficiently and -- theoretically -- "fairly." They aren't actually designed to serve the needs of students.

<comment><USER42> If the students only knew what their needs were. My students _need_ "word problems". Their schooling didn't teach them how to deal with ambiguity or how to make a reasoned argument. Also, in real life you won't encounter the right answer plus four decoy answers.

But they _want_ check-a-box tests. They even went to complain to administration because they weren't getting any. Apparently, I'm asking erroneous [sic!] questions in class. You despair, you do.

<comment><USER43> >Also, in real life you won't encounter the right answer plus four decoy answers.

On the contrary, if you've ever looked for programming help on stack overflow you'll be quite familiar with the real life experience of being presented with a right answer and 4 or more decoys.

<comment><USER44> That's a simplistic way to put it (or just have a jab at stackoverflow).

Overall, if your question has an answer there, it's not a hard one...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I have mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand I'm completely here for the argument that standardized tests aren't a good way to evaluate poetry (or other sorts of literature).

But in the current environment that frequently reduces to an argument that because it's not obviously quantifiable we shouldn't do it. That I disagree with. Most problems don't have objectively quantifiable metrics naturally so being comfortable in frameworks that allow for that ambiguity is important.

<comment><USER46> "...so being comfortable in frameworks that allow for that ambiguity is important."

Indeed, but a multiple-choice standardized test question is the antithesis of such an environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Isn't the basic problem the use of multiple choice? Being able to write a few hundred words arguing an opinion about a poem (right or wrong) has some value. Picking an arbitrarily chosen 'right' answer from a list has almost none. I don't think I've ever had a multiple choice exam in English Lit - actually, I don't remember multiple choice in any serious exam.

<comment><USER48> Well, yes, but actually no. I grew up with both parents teaching in public schools in subjects that cannot be tested in a multiple choice format. They both sat down every night in front of the tv and shuffled papers from inbox to outbox, quickly scribbling a score on each. Very very little thought seemed to go into the content of the work, and I always wondered if they were scanning the names in the top right corner to make their judgment. I never did ask, though. Either way, I'm not sure much could change; even without giving these kids a fair shake, it still took hours to grade these. It's a broken system and the only palatable response seems to be to throw more money at it and hope for different results.

<comment><USER49> > and I always wondered if they were scanning the names in the top right > corner to make their judgment.

This is most certainly a thing. Even funnier, I had a few A's on assignments I never even turned in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> >Texas' STAAR tests are administered in part by Pearson Assessments, a testing company that Holbrook called a "sadistic behemoth."

I have never heard a single good thing about Pearson. Having been assessed by them in Public schools, I think the consensus is well-earned.

<comment><USER51> My neighbor says they pay pretty well. So there's that. At least if you're at the VP level.

<comment><USER52> Off tangent but once I worked for a Pearson software contractor and they talked of their client with their nose turned up, as if they were the king's favourite in the middle ages. Cringe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> >"My final reflection is this: any test that questions the motivations of the author without asking the author is a big baloney sandwich," she wrote. "Mostly test makers do this to dead people who can't protest. But I'm not dead. I protest."

I guess that the result of this will be the test makers using long dead authors more.

</comment><comment><USER54> I grew up in Florida, a state addicted to standardized testing, and after a while you start to notice something. Standardized tests are like a meta game. I'm sure they provide a basic bench mark to see if you're literate or can do basic math but beyond that it's just pattern recognition. After a certain point you stop reading the passages, just skimming, because it's always the same types of questions and you can sort of intuit which beats of the story you need to look at to get the answer. The math sections are the same kind of thing. Match the question up to the right memorized algorithm and run it.

The tests measure your willingness and ability to become good at something with no short-term, obvious benefit, which is a clever system. However, not every high school student has 200 hours to spend getting good at bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER55> This feels like the literary version of the "what in tarnation would you ever need this new-fangled multiplication for" critiques of common core math.

> Holbrook wrote that asking students to guess an author's intent in writing a > piece of literature is doomed to be a pointless exercise.

It's pedagogy! Students aren't trying to divine the One True Meaning of the piece. They're trying to learn how to read a piece of literature, identify literary techniques, and think critically about it. If a student can produce a justifiable answer, they're winning.

I agree that dissecting literature is not fun, and I agree this is probably not the optimal way to teach it. But these are precursors to learning how to read and analyze critically, and we need more of that in society.

<comment><USER56> But they're not being asked to produce a justifiable answer. This is multiple choice with only 1 'correct' answer.

The only way to really test comprehension is through essay questions but then the complaints on subjectivity are raised and we're back at standardised multiple choice

<comment><USER57> Britain manages to set questions for the exams taken at ages 16, (17) and 18 with essay-type questions, for most questions of all subjects.

There's a complete paper for GCSE (at 16) English here. Choose the June 2017 one, as the November one has the source material omitted due to copyright.

[https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/english/gcse/english- languag...](https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/english/gcse/english- language-8700/assessment-resources)

You can skip to the last few pages of the mark scheme to get the idea of how the long-form answers are marked. "Varied and inventive use of structural features, Writing is compelling, incorporating a range of convincing and complex ideas, Fluently linked paragraphs with seamlessly integrated discourse markers"

<comment><USER58> > omitted due to copyright

It is actually omitted due to testcenter policy, to enable reuse. You cannot reuse an exam with its answer key published.

<comment><USER22> Are you sure about that? "Paper 1: Insert (Modified A4 18pt) November 2017" quite clearly states: "The source cannot be reproduced here due to third party copyright restrictions."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> That reminds me of a story of a student who got a homework "Explain the writer's intention". The writing was her father's work. So naturally, she asked her dad for the answer which he replied, "I was thinking at the time of this writing was that I want to finish this goddamn writing ASAP".

She present the answer next day and teacher gave her a bad grade.

<comment><USER60> That's cute but one single thought he had is not even close to a description of overall intent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Out of curiosity, I took the test for the first poem and got all questions correct. I've always been relatively good at standardised tests, and agree they don't always measure something meaningful.

The author is being a little harsh, testing reading skills is difficult, and she does not provide a better alternative to evaluate students reading ability. Moreover, based on her comments, I'm pretty sure that if she were to take the text, she would score a 100%.

The questions and answers:

[https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id...](https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=25769814950&libID=25769814997)

[https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id...](https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=25769814918&libID=25769814965)

<comment><USER24> Well, I could probably figure out all of the "best" answers, but at the same time, I felt only the first question had a choice that was even remotely correct. As you say, it is more of a test of test taking skills than of reading comprehension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Better than some other cases ([http://archive.is/TEp6g](http://archive.is/TEp6g)) , in which not only is a dadaist bit of a very wild book (which i really like and recommend) used as a test question, _the ending was changed_ so it really really makes no sense!

<comment><USER63> There is something deeply ironic about a standardized test asking students to analyze a Pinkwater story. It's the sort of thing he would have written a story about, really. :)

<comment><USER62> he probably has, somewhere.

I can't recommend Borgel enough, either; it's really good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> > _" My final reflection is this: any test that questions the motivations of > the author without asking the author is a big baloney sandwich," she wrote. > "Mostly test makers do this to dead people who can't protest. But I'm not > dead. I protest."_

</comment><comment><USER65> I'm going through a bit of this sort of thing with my oldest child right now. Sometimes there are issues with the common core _specifications_ themselves, but holy heck are there problems with their implementation. For example, common core math standards MP2 & MP3 relate to reasoning and logical arguments.

Typically these areas are targeted to 5th graders to start with. My son is in 3rd grade, yet out of the blue with no prior introduction, questions arise in a module on _fractions_ about this. Suddenly my son is given a question like this:

 _" Jane has 6 apples but 4 of them are rotten. Jane's friend Bob says that less than half of the apples can be eaten._ DERIVE A CONJECTURE _about this situation and provide evidence to support your argument. "_

This is absolutely ridiculous. First, the concept of a _conjecture_ has never previously been introduced. Second, even if it had been, as used here it is completely inappropriate. It has been pulled from the MP3 standard but clearly used by someone creating questions that had no idea of how to actually apply the concept or perhaps know themselves what a proper mathematical conjecture _actually is_ , much less that its use here is basically a complete non- sequitur. The word probably should not appear in an elementary school core specification at all, as every instance I can find of it is used inappropriately as the generic layman's version of the word rather than its mathematical use, when _math is the frickin ' subject at hand_ /end rant

</comment><comment><USER66> I felt like those questions mostly weren't that bad and had a clear "best" answer.

</comment><comment><USER67> I absolutely agree

I dropped out of school because of this. Because I failed writing an essay on world war 1 poetry.

It's not right to dissect art and fail a student for "wrong" answers.

<comment><USER68> It is absolutely possible to misunderstand poetry. (Not saying you did that)

<comment><USER69> Even if you misunderstand the intent of the author, you can give a well- reasoned interpretation.

From what I remember of the standardized tests, they were either more interested in marking the structure of the content than the content itself, or looking for keywords and marking off a checklist.

To the snarky cynic in me, this might be good training for resume-writing, but not really how you want to teach your high school students to be good at creative interpretation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> I work as a tutor and have tutored similar questions - sometimes I encourage students to think about 'how is the test-writer trying to test you?'

And, perhaps, that is what standardized tests are intended to test: can you anticipate and meet the arbitrary requirements of someone with power over you in a particular situation? If yes, you are very employable.

</comment><comment><USER71> Woah, my son is in the equivalent of 7th grade in France (5ème) and he would have never answered the questions correctly (not would I).

We have our share of twisted poetry, but it usually is about some soldier dying on the battlefield of WWI, or about a herring nailed on the wall (those who we at school in the 80's will recognize it ( _...sec, sec, sec..._ ).

The answers are pretty much straightforward, at the level of a regional beauty contest when they are asked a personal question and they answer that they dream of a better world without starving children (or that the US should provide maps to the world, according to Miss South Carolina).

I would hate to have my future hanging on the interpretation of someone's trip when high. Especially when 13 years old.

</comment><comment><USER72> >"Forget joy of language and the fun of discovery in poetry, this is line-by- line dissection, painful and delivered without anesthetic."

Describes my experience with $first_language classes in school to a tee. I love reading and learning and discussing stuff. I loathed those hours where we were told to cram the (god-given) standardised interpretation of the problem, no matter how little sense it made to you or how you might have an alternative opinion or assessment. Stifling all creativity and capacity for independent thought, not to mention killing the joy of reading in millions of kids.

</comment><comment><USER73> I was skeptical because the headline just sounds _too_ good. But yep, this is as stupid and cynical as it sounds. An a-b-c questionnaire about the meaning of a poem. Wow. Something went WRONG here.

</comment><comment><USER74> This happened in real time in my high school we were one of the first classes to use the two-way classroom cameras and we interviewed a writer. Our English teacher was sure that the writer had made items in a scene that was depicted in the book red because the "red makes you feel a certain way"I straight-up ask the writer why he made the curtains in that scene red and they responded with "well they had to be a color why not red!"

</comment><comment><USER75> I'm really disappointed that the author didn't post the answers. Putting my SAT Reading hat on, my guess would be G/B, possibly C?/G/B/F.

</comment><comment><USER76> Consistently, I was most frustrated by the demands in my English and Creative Writing courses that there were correct answers to what certain things within stories were meant to symbolize.

And creative writing in general is something that doesn't work well for people who think in more literal ways. It seems like a way for those who don't to torture those who do. I wonder how much sadism is truly involved in the grading process. My guess is... a lot.

</comment><comment><USER77> When I was looking for one of the poems mentioned, I found what appears to be a sample test[0] (or perhaps one of the past tests the author mentions) with the poem and questions about it. I figured some of you folks might like to take a look.

[0]: [https://s3.amazonaws.com/scschoolfiles/200/a_real_case_1.pdf](https://s3.amazonaws.com/scschoolfiles/200/a_real_case_1.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER78> In my senior year English course, there was an extra credit assignment that involved analyzing Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I decided to just email the author and ask about the book, hoping he would give some unorthodox answers that I could say we're the authors true intent. He ended up sending me some wacky email with Futurama references, and he died about a month after that before I finished the paper

</comment><comment><USER79> Relevant preface from 'The Adventures of Huck Finn':

"Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR per G.G., CHIEF OF ORDNANCE" \- Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huck Finn

</comment><comment><USER80> I don't know if this holds in national exams or in many countries, but my teacher used to follow logical argument and would score that.

I do remember a few cases where there were outright red question marks when essentially I was trying to make elaborate con arguments.

Fortunately, we had no multiple choice questions for any of our three English tests.

</comment><comment><USER81> > _Dose of reality: test makers are for-profit organizations._

And public schools are _really really bad at buying things_.

</comment><comment><USER82> >>> My poems are a whole lot cheaper than Mary Oliver's or Jane Kenyon's, so there's that.

Byron, Wordsworth, Tennyson, Oliver Goldsmith they are all free to license, could we really not use any of the thousands of poems by them and hundreds of other poets? Sure use some modern ones, but use some of the classics too.

</comment><comment><USER83> I always enjoyed this story from Michael Crichton. [http://www.openculture.com/2014/01/george-orwell-got-a-b- at-...](http://www.openculture.com/2014/01/george-orwell-got-a-b-at- harvard.html)

</comment><comment><USER84> Herman Melville was said to have been amazed at the symbolism attributed to him in Moby Dick.

<comment><USER85> This massive diatribe is symbolic of Melville's inability to stick to the fucking point.

<comment><USER84> Don't worry, your diatribe isn't that massive. Actually, I thought Melville's point was to digress. Wasn't the point to digress into all these side details out of the joy of describing the whaling world? (So I have read in commentaries.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Hehe. I believe it.

So I took the SAT-I (out of 1600) with zero prep around 1994.

Math - missed one question (dumb mistake)

English - ~560/800

I was too depressed and anxious (undiagnosed, untreated) at the time to be able to concentrate on the critical thinking and passage questions.

</comment><comment><USER87> > . . And I meander to its rhythm, > flopping like a fish. > Why can't I get > to sleep? > Advertisement

Well said HuffPo. Are there rules on HN about linking to articles that are impossible to read because of adverts?

</comment><comment><USER88> You are being measured to derive an acceptable answer based on the framework which you are taught against. Work is usually not taken as it was meant to be perceived. The presumption is naive.

These are not actionable findings.

</comment><comment><USER89> Probably the same discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348672](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348672)

</comment><comment><USER90> "I'm a native speaker of Greek but I failed this grammar test"

</comment><comment><USER91> When I was in highschool, this thought certainly occurred to me. On the other hand, the possibility exists that an author's intention is actually irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER92> I was always afraid to read any classical work because no matter what you think you read, someone will tell you "Actually..."

Then one day I read this beautiful quote about the old man and the sea:

> "Then there is the other secret. There isn't any symbolism. The sea is the > sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The > shark are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people > say is shit. What goes beyond is what you see beyond when you know."

― Ernest Hemingway

<comment><USER93> On the one hand I feel Hemingway was being sincere when he said/wrote this quote. On the other hand, part of me feels he was saying this just to be provocative.

Also, I'm not sure anyone has ever told me "Actually..." when I've explained what I thought I read. If this was a teacher/professor of yours he/she did you a huge disservice.

I can think of two reasons (I'm sure there are more) for why artists say what they want to say indirectly.

1) Things tend to stick in our brains the more we have to work to gain that knowledge. If someone imparts knowledge to you and you take it in passively this knowledge tends not to stick around in our brains as well as if you had to struggle to acquire this knowledge.

2) Many times in our history what an artist said or wrote could get that artist killed. As a result, they tended to mask the true meaning of their message using allegory and/or metaphor.

<comment><USER94> From what I know of Hemingway, it's sincere.

The image he gives of himself (or imagines of himself) is a barrel chested beer swigging straight shooting Man's Man. He bullied "pencil necked" little Fitzgerald into alcoholism, and possibly abandoning his wife. He used a writing style that was the quintessential "no fluff" style of the period.

I don't know him but from what I know of him he would not be a fan of having untanned literary professors claiming his works were about more than literally just an old man pissing in the sea or a bull fighter fighting bulls.

<comment><USER95> > from what I know of him he would not be a fan of having untanned literary > professors claiming his works were about more than literally just an old man > pissing in the sea or a bull fighter fighting bulls.

... I think that's the point - even if it _were_ more than that, he might not be a fan of admitting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> > Dose of reality: test makers are for-profit organizations

The College Board, the maker of the SAT and Advanced Placement (AP) exams, is a not-for-profit organization. While the test in question the author refers to is the Texas state assessment tests (STAAR), it is factually incorrect to say test makers are for-profit organizations.

<comment><USER97> The author never said anything about the SAT or AP exams. She was referring to the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) where her poems appear. STAAR is developed by Pearson, a publicly-traded for-profit publishing corporation.

<comment><USER96> Yes, and she generalizes about all testing organizations. To repeat hear exact line in full context:

> Dose of reality: test makers are for-profit organizations. My poems are a > whole lot cheaper than Mary Oliver's or Jane Kenyon's, so there's that.

She does not say, "Texas state test makers..." \-- she just says "test makers." She singles out STAAR in the rest of the article but that graph explicitly says "test makers."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> is this testing method: a) dumb b) silly c) aromatically identical to balls d) two of the above

</comment><comment><USER99> I mean, so? She writes poems. Why should that mean she is good at analyzing poems? Are game players good at writing games, and vice-versa? Are people who eat a lot good at cooking? Are runners great at designing shoes?

<comment><USER100> I agree that the author doesn't get to dictate the reading of a poem (nor does the test-maker), but these questions are usually formulated to explicitly reference the intentions of the author (the "author's purpose"). Although, now that I look at a few, it looks like the common language is "The author most likely did so-and-so in order to...".

But more honest language ("What does this line mean?") would erase the veneer of objectivity; hermeneutical questions do not have "right" answers you can pick from a list of multiple choices.

<comment><USER101> > But more honest language ("What does this line mean?") would erase the > veneer of objectivity; hermeneutical questions do not have "right" answers

"When you say it honestly, it looks bad. So don't say it that way".

Not targeting at you, obviously you are explaining the thought process of the exam maker, but that kinda shows the issue with them.

They looked at the question and realize that there's no right answer for these kind of question to be made in to a multiple choice question. But instead of changing the test to something else, or making it a free text answer, they choose to play with wording of the question to hide the problem with it.</comment></comment></comment>


Flat Will Kill You, Eventually: Why Every Company Needs Structure - <AUTHOR> http://themodernteam.com/flat-will-kill-you-eventually-why-every-company-needs-structure/ <comment><USER2> Currently working at a place that considers itself 'flat' I can say that it's one of the most confusing things ever, and the management tries to continually tell me that it's such a great thing that everyone can take ownership of things themselves. It's a bunch of bull really, it just means no one has to take responsibility for failures to meet goals, there's no pressure to meet deadline and there's no actual ownership of product. This article hits all the points on the head about said flat structures, and how they don't work at all. They breed distrust, and resentment toward management because of an apparent (or real) lack of defining what's expected.

<comment><USER3> I have also found that the flatness fails quickly when the loudest, most aggressive, least-respectful-of-authority, best-dev-in-the-room type takes the (de-facto) leadership position, bullying others who challenge him. Schoolyard stuff, to be sure, and since most people don't like conflict for extended periods of time, you end up with a local "leader" (scare quotes intended) despite the intention to remain flat. It's the "rock star dev who's also a jerk", and eventually it creates chaos.

<comment><USER4> I actually think that's where flatness works best.

Rather than being whoever can kiss the most ass and not upset the boss (the usual system), a flat system ends up being a battle for leadership which puts the smart and commanding at the top. "Rock star dev who's also a jerk" _is_ who should be the boss.

<comment><USER5> Really? "Rock star dev who's also a jerk" is typically driven by ego, whereas the actual leader should be driven by the needs of the business and the needs of the customer, and be talented at balancing the two. He should also be a good consensus-builder and emotionally capable, which this guy is by definition not.

So you'll get "impressive" code that leverages sexy technologies that is also late, buggy, and not what the customer actually needs. And on top of it all you'll have a demoralized drama-prone team.

<comment><USER6> I challenge you to find actual leaders in the past, ones we use as examples, who would fit your description of "an actual leader".

A leader is someone who can get people to get shit done. Usually it means convincing them that what the leader wants done is the thing to be done. Consensus-building can be done in many different way - in particular, a very good way is to just arbitrarily announce what the consensus is. In most fields, and in pretty much 99% of business, almost decision is better than prolonged periods of not knowing what to do. And if a leader is competent in the field in question, his arbitrary decisions will usually be good.

So as long as you can align their ego with business/customer needs, a "rock star dev who's also a jerk" isn't the worst choice for a leader.

<comment><USER7> "isn't the worst" is a pretty low bar.

As for your challenge, just about anyone I have worked for and respected. You don't know them, so you can use a No True Scotsman defense, I guess. That won't change that ego/jerkiness is completely unnecessary.

Bad decisions are _catastropic_ in tech. That's a driving force for things like Agile. Running off and coding or building things without a plan is a recipe for disaster.

I can make you do something by screaming at you. That works to get you up over that hill to attack the pillbox. Doesn't work so well in tech where you will just quit.

<comment><USER6> But why do you assume that "rockstar dev who's being a jerk" means a despotic leader who only screams at people? I read it as a leader who is a) very opinionated, b) doesn't tolerate bullshit, c) may express himself in an offensive way. You could say that e.g. Patton was a rock-star jerk of military warfare, but it didn't mean he screamed at everyone all the time.

> _Bad decisions are catastropic in tech._

No, they're not. What's the worst that could happen? Your SaaS cats-on- Instagram-to-save-the-world startup will flop. Or you won't deliver some product that's being delivered by 2000 identical companies around the world. Or some people won't get to see some annoying ads.

We're not talking medicine or space travel here. If we were, we'd be focusing on whether a leader is _effective_ , not whether he's a nice person.

<comment><USER8> They meant catastrophic _to your business_ , not catastrophic in some larger sense.

<comment><USER6> I know. And I meant to put all of this into a proper perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article is very interesting but fails to address one point. Why companies go for "Flat" or "Holocracy" organizations? I know three reasons:

\- People tend to hate managers, they don't trust them.

\- Flat team are faster removing the management complexity.

\- There's more flexibility and more creativity around the problem tackled by the team.

The last reason is reasonable but is true applied for small unit inside the bigger organization, not the whole organization, as this article explains well. Nothing prevent to create a small unit with a specific task inside a bigger organization and to organize this unit (usually made by "star" employee) in a flat structure.

The second reason is disputable, it doesn't scale has the article suggest.

But the first reason is not addressed. And it is the real issue. I think everyone had terrible bosses and great bosses. We usually remember terrible managers as an example of the average managers (Mental association: Dilbert's Pointy Hair Boss) while we consider the great bosses we had as mentors, role models, guide. And we forget that they were also our manager. It is a form of selection bias.

There's also another issue at play, changing organizational structure, trying Flat or Holocracy is easy (I'm not saying that it's easy to do it right, it's easy to give it a try). Promoting the right person, with the right skills is difficult. And if you promote the wrong person (it happens) removing from a managerial position or moving him to a position that is a better fit is extremely difficult. So we all decide to do what is easy instead of what is difficult. Not sure I could blame someone, it is the people mindset, but doesn't mean that what is easy is also correct while what is difficult, when done right, proved to be correct.

<comment><USER10> I'd say that people tend to dislike crappy managers. No one (rational) actually hates a manager that makes their life easier.

<comment><USER8> There is a lot of talk about how the problem is "bad" or "crappy" managers, which I think allows many of us in the vast masses of untrained tech managers to feel warmer and fuzzier, because while we might not really know what we're doing, we're good-natured and right-thinking, so surely we're not _crappy_ managers! In reality, I think _mediocre_ management is the much larger problem. Or put another way, the idea that management skills are not something to be invested heavily in, but rather something to be "figured out". It may be true that a well-managed organization full of good professional managers is more efficient than less management-focused structures, but I'm not convinced that most organizations are willing to invest the resources to hire or train their way into having one of those, so other structures are a sensible alternative to explore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In my experience, the thing that I've seen kill the motivation and productivity of any team, is the feeling – true or not – that the team isn't being listened to. From what I've seen, most people seem to be able to cope with most any structure, but if feedback goes (seemingly, at least) unnoticed then that more than anything will kill their motivation. No amount of flat, or structure, or holymoly organization voodoo will fix a team that's lost trust in their ability to do anything because they aren't being listened to.

</comment><comment><USER12> Adding one thing not addressed directly: sometimes people disagree and there needs to be a decision mechanism.

Consensus is obviously preferable. But it scales very poorly. A simple workaround is to nominate someone as the tie-breaker. To avoid secondary rounds of nonsense, you try to pick someone with the respect of their peers.

<comment><USER13> Conway's Law & micro-services help maintain flatter organizations at least in tech focused companies. When disagreements arise & consensus is hard, the various parties can simply introduce a new service boundary & go their different ways.

<comment><USER14> We have exactly that. Eight microservices that should have been two, all using slightly different technlogy, and still nobody buys our product since everybody disagree on what customers actually need.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Flat systems value the accumulation of power over the actual work done. So if you are good at working the system, then you'll do fine. Otherwise, you have no protection. Wikipedia is a good example of a flat system where people accumulate power in other ways, usually by banding with others to enforce a particular point of view. While the goal is ostensibly creating content, much of the time is taken up on power disputes that are not aligned with the goal of the organization. This political infighting leads inevitably to harassment of those who do not fit the system. In Wikipedia's case, minorities, women, and non-aggressive users find it difficult to gain power from the entrenched power groups, while _those in power think nothing is wrong because they erroneously think the flat system gives everyone a fair chance_. Combined with a lack of leadership, flat systems result in inefficient processes and inconsistent work compared to hierarchical systems where everyone knows their role and a leader guides the project, and has the final say.

<comment><USER16> Except every problem you just listed with flat systems is endemic in hierarchical systems too, to the same extent (including everyone in power thinking the system gives everyone a fair chance). Nothing about an org chart and formal channels of action has ever stopped politics and informal channels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can anyone comment on if Valve is as flat as I have heard and what makes it work for them?

<comment><USER18> You are presuming it actually works for Valve, which is not an uncontroversial notion.

<comment><USER12> It's controversial because we don't know if it would keep working without a massive free cashflow.

(My guess is: it would not).

<comment><USER18> That is not even what I am talking about.

I know a number of people who have quit Valve and almost all of them would cite organizational dysfunction as one of the top reasons for quitting.

I don't know whether that is true -- I have never worked there -- and I don't wish to spread any ill rumors about Valve. I'm just saying that I know a bunch of people who have worked there who think the flat thing is one of Valve's biggest problems (another one being the incentive structure; of course these two things go hand in hand).

<comment><USER12> Gotcha. I haven't worked there either; but I find the boosterism I sometimes observe to be annoying because of the confounding factor of massive free cashflow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > There's an impulse among companies these days to differentiate themselves > .... or most recently and most astonishingly, [by] raising your minimum > salary to $70,000 per year.

Really? Raising the minimum wage was about "differentiating" themselves, and not out of the realization that everyone needs a comfortable wage to live on?

I'm sorry, but I can't take an analysis by such a person seriously. This attitude demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

</comment><comment><USER20> Whenever this comes up in management theory I'm always reminded of this article. [http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm](http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)

The setting is radical feminism rather than tech management, but the drivers are the same and so are the results.

</comment><comment><USER21> My understanding is that you can be flat and still have a project lead who is in charge of driving the project to the finish line. I'm skeptical of flat myself but I'm not sure if it is to blame in your situation. Rather, you seemed to need a lead whose job is to ultimately make the project succeed.

</comment><comment><USER22> Another issue with flat structure is that once implicit management roles arise, other people tend to hold those individuals responsible for results even as they lack official support for the role. It builds resentment towards them and puts them in a difficult position.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think there be trouble on both ends of the spectrum: too flat, and too hierarchical. I think there's a sweet spot in the middle: my gut-feeling is about log_10 (N) + 1 layers, where N = number of employees.

</comment><comment><USER23> Flat will only kill you if you do a half-assed job of it. Functional flat organizations require motivated members. If you have a goal that everyone can agree on, and you trust those people to stay on target, you don't need structure.

The unfortunate truth is that traditional businesses will never be able to motivate their employees enough to make this work at any kind of scale. You have no reason to care that much, especially not long term.

Personally, I think workers-coops are the answer. But that remains to be seen.

</comment><comment><USER24> My previous comments on flat structures (related to holacracy, but works for any flat org theory):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8270601](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8270601)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9513604](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9513604)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9367390](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9367390)

</comment><comment><USER25> It sounds like the problem isn't flatness so much as a complete absence of mission and direction. Any team needs a mission to organise itself around solving

</comment><comment><USER26> Flat doesn't work because people from childhood on have been taught to listen to teacher, listen to boss, listen to parent.

Is it any wonder people don't know how to work together independently of authority figures?

I think some civic training would be good for people working in flat organizations. They need to be un-educated.

<comment><USER27> > _" I think some civic training would be good for people working in flat > organizations. They need to be un-educated."_

Do you mean 'de-educated' or 're-educated'? There are plenty of uneducated people.

You asssert that flat organizations could do well, but without any examples or evidence to back you up, I am inclined to disagree. If flat organizations were better, I would expect that some out of the hundreds of thousands (if not more) companies in the developed world would use that system.

<comment><USER26> Slavery lasted over thousand years as an economic system. Feudalism lasted just as long. Your argument back then would have been "if capitalist firms were better, I would expect some. People in the feudalist world would use that system".

As a matter of fact, there are thousands or such flat firms. Just as during feudalism there were thousands of capitalist firms that would fail.

Failure is does not mean it won't work in 10, 50 or 100 years.

There will be a time when we think of managers the same way we think of kings now.

<comment><USER27> It's possible that flat organizations are the future, but it is not true that all organizations were lord-serf in feudal times or that slave labor was the only sort of labor in its time (, in fact slavery still exists). Please show some examples of flat firms, which are not the highly centralized sort described in the OP, I am interested in reading about them. As far as I have seen, all so-called flat organizations are actually very centralized for all important decisions.

<comment><USER26> One of the largest is of course Mondragon in Spain which employs 74,000 or so workers.

Flat is usually called "Socialist" in the rest of the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Flat structure is possible, Valve Software has 0 managers: [http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.p...](http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER29> counter-point -- olark (a ycombinator company) uses flat-ish hierarchy and works quite well [https://blog.olark.com/our-world-is-no-longer- flat](https://blog.olark.com/our-world-is-no-longer-flat)

(disclosure: i used to work for olark, and their system works quite well)

<comment><USER30> This isn't a real counter-point, imo. This basically says "flat didn't scale, so we introduced some structure or other workarounds, though 'teams' can stay flat".

That basically is called hierarchy by a different term. And I suspect, as most with quite a bit of experience would, that as olark grows, more layers (aka, hierarchy) would be introduced. It's natural and it's fine.

It's fine! I know it's a dirty word, but hierarchy is fine. It really is.

I contend it's NOT the problem that people want to solve, rather they want to solve a different one. It's the classic case of treating the symptoms and not the disease. I highly suspect that in most flat companies, the real thing people are after is some subset of [trust, autonomy, mission, vision, ownership, accountability, flexibility, empowerment] etc. But, instead of focusing on those, the focus shifts to the structure. If in solving for the subset it is found that structure is at fault, by all means give it a go. That is not how I've seen it done, though. Rather, people /assume/ flat is better with no mindfully explicit reasons why they would adopt it.</comment></comment>


Why giving poor kids computers doesn't improve scholastic performance. - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2192798/pagenum/all/ <comment><USER2> A good friend of mine grew up poor in the city. His parents brought him and his brother every Sunday to the bookstore and told them they could buy a book. Even when the family was having trouble with finances. To this day, an individual who loves literature, he gets emotional when trying to tell me what this meant to him.

<comment><USER3> Sure, but if you have a computer with internet you have access to Wikipedia and the like. Access to information is what allows people to bring themselves up in the world. In so far as the OLPC will bring these kids more and higher quality information it will help them of course they need to learn to read before they can realize those benefits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Scholastic performance_ in this context usually means _ability to follow arbitrary instructions, remain quiet, and perform obviously unimportant busywork without becoming bored or distracted._

So, no, a tool that can both provide distraction and unleash a creative mind to explore is not exactly what you'd want to hand someone you'd like to meet the above goal. Its quite likely the opposite. _For God's sake, give it to them!_

</comment><comment><USER5> The important question isn't whether it improves scholastic performance, but whether it improves life and career performance. Computer skills are a prerequisite for getting almost any modern job.

Whether a computer improves a student's performance on algebra or history is really not too important.

<comment> a-priori Very good point. I had a computer available almost as long as I've been in school, since about age 6-7. I first stumbled onto QBASIC shortly thereafter, and I've been coding ever since.

My grades were never stellar. I was just never driven to excel in school and avoided homework whenever possible. Instead of studying, I spent my time learning about computers.

All that time on the computer definitely hurt my scholastic performance, but it did wonders for my career performance.

<comment><USER6> My dad was a programmer, so I don't know what it's like to grow up without a computer. Having a computer from such a young age set me up to be bored in school. Zork was a major influence in my initial interest in reading. By the time I hit kindergarten, I was already devouring the biographies written for kids. My teachers usually didn't know what to do with me, so I spent most of kindergarten - second grade on my own in the school library.

My grades have always been good, but I think that's more because of my parents' influence. My mom is a teacher and helped me find books on subjects that weren't offered in my school, so I would be less likely to hit material that I would be learning later in class. She also encouraged me to write.

My dad introduced me to programming and Pascal in elementary school. I went to a rural public high school in Louisiana, so my dad would often pick up old college textbooks in subjects my high school didn't offer, like chemistry, Latin, and history from a non Christian perspective. He also stood up for me when my guidance counselor tried to put me on the MRS. track instead of college. If I had to sit through 4 years of home ec and parenting classes, I would have dropped out as soon as I turned 16.

I think kids tend to do better in school when their parents care. An involved parent could use a computer to enhance their child's education. A non involved parent might use it as "tv 2.0" - just another thing to entertain their kid so they don't have to.

<comment><USER7> A deeper thing you're getting at is the irrelevancy of public grade school.

<comment><USER8> Public school isn't irrelevant. It just needs to be updated a bit. The gap between how the current generation (people born post 1980 or so) and people born before before that is _huge_. And now we're starting to get teachers who grew up in the 1980's and soon, the 90's. Having teachers that know how to relate to kids will do more to keep them interested then any change in the curriculum can do.

Because, fundamentally, the curricula is solid - Math doesn't change that often, Physics/Chemistry/Biology/Earth Sciences are well established fields. History is ongoing, but given what High School history classes focus on, it's not going to change much. English/Literature isn't going to change an incredible amount - new books can be added in, but Shakespeare's words haven't changed since he wrote them. Writing styles may come and go, but thats just a small part of everything learned in HS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not sure why anyone thought that computers could aid in teaching traditional subjects. Computers can store and process data, simulate objects, crunch numbers. They cannot explain or evaluate. These are the root of teaching and they're beyond computers' abilities.

My schools always had computers, and I never observed anything to suggest they aided in teaching. At best, they were labor-saving: More efficient than typewriters, more efficient than paper indices, more efficient than microfiche, etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> The truth is that if pencils and paper don't work, then computers won't either. The problem can't be solved by chucking more "stuff" or money at it.</comment>


Digital Tax Increase to Take Effect in Europe - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/business/international/digital-tax-increase-to-take-effect-in-europe.html?ref=technology&_r=0

<comment><USER2> The NYT headline misses the point somewhat…

Large companies have been 'basing' their sales operations in Luxembourg because it has an extremely low rate of VAT of ebooks, digital music etc.

Their sales operations have mainly been in name only with most of the work being done in other countries, and revenue moved around via high interest rate loans.

The EU have decided to legislate against this and make VAT payable at the rate in the buyers country.

Only problem is in legislating to prevent the likes of Apple and Amazon using the Luxembourg VAT loophole they've created hell for lots of small independent sellers who now have to charge VAT whether they needed to or not before, and charge in at multiple rates depending on where the buyer is.

Rachel Andrew has some good writeup's on this, in particular [http://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2014/11/30/how-the-eu- vat...](http://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2014/11/30/how-the-eu-vat-rules- make-eu-startups-and-digital-businesses-uncompetitive-in-a-global-market/) with more in the archives [http://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/](http://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/)</comment>


Oh, the irony: LulzSec hacked by TeaMp0isoN - <AUTHOR> http://thegadgetsite.com/2011/06/oh-the-irony-lulzsec-hacked-by-teamp0ison/

<comment><USER2> Based on what I just read they all seem to be snitchin on each other....Stop snitchin' fellas....if you do the crime do the time. No need to point fingers around saying since he told on me I'm telling on him...snitches are snitches.

</comment><comment><USER3> I enjoyed reading the Wired article about a black-hat[1] and hope that after all this silliness is over, that we will be treated to another similarly good story.

1=I don't have the url, and it isn't important anyway</comment>


Unboxing The Verizon Droid - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l%253D245468%2526a%253D245479%2526po%253D1,00.asp?p=y

<comment><USER2> The first Android phone I actually want.

Now to wait for my Palm Pre contract to expire...

<comment><AUTHOR> don't you just hate contracts?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not even close to as sexy as unboxing the iPhone! :)

</comment><comment><USER4> it looks pretty sexy if you ask me.</comment>


Ask HN: What is your best online purchase? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Toilet paper, believe it or not. You can get a case of 80 rolls of Angel Soft 2-ply bathroom tissue for about 40 bucks from online office supply stores (officeworld.com currently has the lowest price). Saves me about $200 a year vs. buying it at the grocery store.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, heh.

I totally Amazon Subscribe-and-Save all my toilet paper now (but I don't always like to admit it)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was very happy when my local grocery started delivering groceries from online orders. It's really helpful, especially since it remembers your orders, so you can just edit the cart from the previous week, instead of reselecting all the items again.

</comment><comment><USER5> Probably my Lenovo Thinkpad, seeing as you can really only get them online. At least were I live.</comment>


Rich people don't create jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-create-jobs-2013-11

<comment><USER2> Poor people don't create jobs. Giving money away to poor people so they spend it 'to create jobs' makes the money worth less, makes the people less willing to work, and it still doesn't create jobs.

<comment><USER3> You don't understand economics.

Demand for products creates jobs. If more people have more disposable income to buy products, demand for those products increase, and thus the demand for employees to create those products increases.</comment></comment>


Chasing the shiny and new - <AUTHOR> https://www.nemil.com/musings/shinyandnew.html <comment><USER2> I don't think the problem is in the developers but rather the employers, especially the recruiters. They love to find a developer that is a perfect fit in terms of stack. If A developer is a better coder than B but if B has experience in the companies stack, they will put B as a higher priority. This makes sense since people can't tell which one is a better programmer by looking at resumes.

So what does a startup developers do? We have to chase after those shiny and new stack to keep up with the trend and be high in the market.

When we are looking for an another job, which job do we apply to? The one that is closer to your stack. You will be high in the market and get to say "I have experience". Because these are the things that recruiter/employer cares the most.

<comment><USER3> Designers face a similar problem; often companies do first-pass sourcing and filtering on the basis of Dribbble and Behance portfolios, which are heavy on pretty visuals but light on process and solving business problems. This was discussed extensively after [https://medium.com/@intercom/the-dribbblisation- of-design-40...](https://medium.com/@intercom/the-dribbblisation-of- design-406422ccb026)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is something that has consistently frustrated me for years. I used to worry that I wasn't keeping up with the newest and most hip languages and frameworks.

When I saw other "trend" focused developers taking longer to launch apps and products, if they ever launched at all, I realized it was my ability to actually get something out the door that mattered, not only to myself but to my clients.

Part of me still likes learning new things, and I do occasionally experiment with new frameworks and languages, but having strong core competency in a few old languages has served me really well.

</comment><comment><USER5> In general, people don't care how you mine gold.

They care that you have gold to sell.

Tinkering with hyperspatial hoversmelting 0.1.1-beta is a waste of time if you can just crush rocks, leach 'em and sell some flake.

<comment><USER6> To torture your analogy a bit further, though - it might matter to the miners. If you want to go at rocks with a steel pick - you're right: You can pull gold out that way and when someone buys it they don't care how you got it... But if you are mining with more than one person and the other competing mining crews are using power equipment and you're banging metal against rocks with your bare hands, you might find it tougher to get miners on your crew.

<comment><USER7> A more adequate analogy would be: You're a miner who carries your mined gold using your truck. It's efficient and cheap. Just what you need to carry stuff. But some new kids on the block think they should carry them using Ferrari, just because. "It's so cool! This way I'll attract all the miners to work under me because they probably want to ride a Ferrari than a truck to carry gold! Sure trucks can carry more, but my Ferrari can reach 315KM/h!"

<comment><USER8> No, it's more like: some miners are carrying gold in wheelbarrows pulled by cars, with very intricate mechanisms to keep them from tipping over; some miners are hauling ore in the back seats of Jaguars; some miners are hauling it in trucks hitched to mules; and one shows up with a fully-fueled ore- hauling truck, and everyone looks at the new guy and laughs at someone trying to do something so foolish: the car-pulled wheelbarrow guys note that truck- users are using old-fashioned mule-hauling technology ('but i'm not using mules!' says the new guy); the truck-users note that people who don't use mules tear up their backseats or spill their wheelbarrows ('but I'm not doing either!'); and the back-seat-loading Jag-haulers note that internal combustion is a superior way of generating hauling energy ('but that's what I'm using, and a truck engine is superior to a car's for hauling ore!' says the new guy).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
      > What worries me is that certain developers, especially
      > developers early in their career, may get the idea that a
      > startup engineer is not a problem solver or computer
      > scientist, but... their task is [instead] to memorize a
      > new... language, framework, or library - in many cases to
      > get limited benefits.

While I agree that it's _possible_ that an early stage startup (and I mean _early_, like building their first version) might flounder around rewriting their app using different tech stacks and never actually ship anything, I suspect that it's more common to see companies delay releasing their first version due to reworking things that are perfectly acceptable for a rough first version.

(edit: Also, I think the idea of a "sacrificial architecture" is useful when starting out. If you're lucky enough to need to massively scale, you're going to have to replace everything eventually anyway, so don't get too hung up on trying to make things scalable from day one.)

<comment><USER10> _I suspect that it 's more common to see companies delay releasing their first version due to reworking things that are perfectly acceptable for a rough first version_

My observation has been that this gets a project into what I call the "done- but" category. "It's done, but could you change this?". "It's done, but can we make it responsive?".

This is especially rough if the company uses pretty mockups to sell products-- the cultural focus on design/UI/UX can drag out development, burn out developers, and generally just slow everything down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been thinking along similar lines for quite a while, you really did a nice job of laying it all out and making it coherent though. I've bookmarked your essay for future reference.

Something that doesn't get talked about too much, that I worry about, is the _massive_ amount of duplication of work effort that happens as a result of this hyperchurn in software architectures. For an industry that relies on terms and phrases like "NIH" and "premature optimization" and "great programmers reuse" to emphasize the importance of productivity, a huge amount of effort is spent every year building out libraries and frameworks and languages to replace previous libraries and frameworks and languages that largely did the same thing.

Probably the finest example of this is is CPAN. Perl _still_ has one of the largest community-managed repository of libraries of any other language (probably C or C++ or similar has got it beat). Any software developer in 2015 that decides Perl is just too antiquated to use and wants to move a large Perl codebase to, say, Node.js, now has to either rewrite those libraries or find libraries that have already been rewritten by someone else.

If Node (for example) were the only major new language since Perl, I could see how maybe the initial investment in effort to duplicate all of Perl's functionality might pay off if Node offers a significant enough improvement in productivity in the long term. But, since Perl there's been PHP, Python, Ruby, Node, Go, to name a few, and each of those have had their own competing frameworks ... we simply aren't gaining enough in long-term productivity when each new language or framework is being replaced within a couple of years by another new language or framework.

I have a hunch that a lot of this is a result of a competitive software developer job market. Newer and younger developers, lacking the background and experience of older greybeards, migrate towards newer technologies as a way to differentiate themselves. They eventually get hired into management roles (in startups, this can happen very quickly), where they have the freedom to operate their own fiefdoms, and they quickly establish rules of software architecture that ensure they get to hire other young developers that are comfortable with the latest trend.

It can seem a little bit absurd, but fortunately I'm not seeing many signs that this is happening that much yet outside of the HN & startup microcosm.

</comment><comment><USER12> Let me preface this by saying I agree with pretty much everything in the article.

However, I just wanted to say that, as a heavily opinionated developer, I _do_ happen to actively avoid applying to positions that involve working with certain technologies.

I avoid these technologies not because of any lack of shininess, but simply because I find them frustrating to work with, knowing there are better approaches available for the problems they're intended to solve.

</comment><comment><USER13> I bet he wouldn't switch back to whatever he was using previously unless he had a friend working there and/or it was significantly more money.

It is a little tough learning new programming languages and frameworks every year or two though. But sometimes that's fun. Is it really necessary to track the winds of development fashion? No. But mostly I think people should realize a lot of it is about whats trendy and not hard technical issues.

</comment><comment><USER14> Most companies don't have interesting engineering problems to solve, so all they have to attract talent is a shiny new stack.

</comment><comment> a-nikolaev I dunno, I lost all the hope understanding these shiny web-programming things...

But reading how plain Nginx works was surprisingly refreshing..

</comment><comment><USER15> Something stack chasers should consider: one of the fastest product to unicorn, Slack, still uses PHP.</comment>


Did Microsoft steal the Kinect? - <AUTHOR> http://hackaday.com/2011/07/14/did-microsoft-steal-the-kinect/

<comment><USER2> Microsoft licenses much of the Kinect technology from PrimeSense, and I believe another company. PrimeSense was founded in 2005.

PrimeSense, Microsoft and many others were working on, and have developed similar technology. Did Microsoft steal from Carlos Anzola?

It sounds like nothing more than a coincidence that Carlos sent his patents in two days before Microsoft announced project natal.

The patent has a filing date of May 2009, here is a PrimeSense patent filed in January of 2008 <http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0020078.html>

Now, of course non of this proves that Microsoft didn't steal from Carlos, or that they haven't stolen from anybody else.

But in this instance, I think the timeline evidence is stacked against Carlos. Though he may have comparable technology, there seem to be competing patents already in place. Who's to say Microsoft hadn't seen PrimeSense technology or other similar technology before they saw Carlos?</comment>


[Ask HN]How many of you still uses SKYPE? - <AUTHOR>

Im just wondering (with a friend) if all this surveillance over calls and Skype are just method to get stats on "how many people we piss off" if whe tell that we are spying on them. just to end passing a law to make it legal because "not to many people protest on this"<p>im not from EEUU but this clearly affect me because i sed skype some time ago and now im afraid of just starting it <comment><USER2> It is non-freedom respecting software so I see no reason why anyone would volunteer to use it.</comment>


Palo Alto teacher shot and killed by a police officer - <AUTHOR> https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/12/10/palo-alto-teacher-dies-after-officer-involved-shooting <comment><USER2> I'm sure that everytime the police kill someone, they'd like to describe it as 'suicide by cop'</comment>


The Daily Mail Talks to Private Equity Firms as it Flirts with Yahoo Bid - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/10/dailymail-yahoo/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11469610](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11469610)</comment>