National Testing or Political Testing: I s There a Difference?

Are two national reports on standardized testing realistic or simplistic? What is the difference between “political” testing and conventional testing? What are some likely consequences of politicizing school testing?     

Legal Defensibility of Standards: Issues and Policy Perspectives

What legal issues may arise in setting content or performance standards? What precedents are relevant? What practices are defensible?     

A nation at risk: The economic consequences of neglecting career development

Conclusion Computer-based career systems should be the focal point of popular, and effective career development initiatives which are of tremendous benefit to individuals. Such initiatives also have the potential to significantly reduce public expenditures and enhance the nation's competitive position internationally. The key lies in helping people understand that we can no longer afford to neglect the career development needs of Americans.I am most grateful for this opportunity to share my thoughts with you. I encourage you to promote the use of computer-based career systems by defining their benefits in economic terms. However, be sure you can prove your system does more than simply entertain its users, or leave them with extensive computer printouts.Phillip S. Jarvis is Manager, Careerware Research and Product Design, STM Systems Corp., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and the author of CHOICES. This is the text of a paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Association of Computer-Based Systems for Career Information ((ACSCI) in St. Louis, Missouri on December 2, 1988.     

A comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers.

There is limited information on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of female rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of females: Group 1 comprised 10 elite climbers aged 31.3 +/- 5.0 years (mean +/- s) who had led to a standard of 'hard very severe'; Group 2 consisted of 10 recreational climbers aged 24.1 +/- 4.0 years who had led to a standard of 'severe'; and Group 3 comprised 10 physically active individuals aged 28.5 +/- 5.0 years who had not previously rock-climbed. The tests included finger strength (grip strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus), flexibility, bent arm hang and pull-ups. Regression procedures (analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass, leg length, height and age. For finger strength, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values (P < 0.05) than the recreational climbers and non-climbers (four fingers, right hand: elite 321 +/- 18 N, recreational 251 +/- 14 N, non-climbers 256 +/- 15 N; four fingers, left hand: elite 307 +/- 14 N, recreational 248 +/- 12 N, non-climbers 243 +/- 11 N). For grip strength of the right hand, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values than the recreational climbers only (elite 338 +/- 12 N, recreational 289 +/- 10 N, non-climbers 307 +/- 11 N). The results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength than recreational climbers and non-climbers.     

Efficiency and Inefficiency in the Ranking in Competitions: the Case of the Queen Elisabeth Music Contest

The Queen Elisabeth Contest is one of the most prestigious competitions in classical music. For both the artists who participate and for the public, it is important that the ranking of the finalists be affected as little as possible by exogenous factors relating to the organisation of the competition. Still, it is impossible to control for all contingencies. Thus, the ranking can be expected to deviate from that obtained in a hypothetical full-information assessment process. As such, the ranking may be unfair to the candidates and inefficient in providing information to the consumer. Deviations from the full-information ideal may result from self-selection of candidates, from positive information at the margin, and from differences in circumstances. Analysing data on all piano and violin versions of the Contest over the period 1956–1999, we find strong evidence of biases in the rankingprocess. Confirming previous research, we find that musicians who perform later in the final week or later on a given day in this week (on average) obtain a better classification. Further, in the piano competitions women obtain lower rankings and, prior to 1990, finalists from the Soviet Union obtained higherrankings than average. The jury appreciates innovation in the sense that musicians who perform a more recently composed concerto obtain a higher rank. Finally – especiallyfor violin – the candidate's decision to perform a popular concerto leadsto a lower ranking.