Vito wrote:
snip

And if I'm to compare several candidates I want to see scores on
standardized tests.

The results of standardized testing provide only at best a simplistic
and at worse, an irrelevant answer to the question you're asking.
I'm always surprised when I see/read people comments indicating that
these blunt instruments have some sort of validity.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:17:33 -0400, prodigal1 wrote:

Vito wrote:
snip

And if I'm to compare several candidates I want to see scores on
standardized tests.

The results of standardized testing provide only at best a simplistic
and at worse, an irrelevant answer to the question you're asking.
I'm always surprised when I see/read people comments indicating that
these blunt instruments have some sort of validity.

OK, time for a definition of terms he What I am interested in
pursuing is not "homeschooling" in the sense of someone completely off
the radar of a standardized education, but "distance learning",
whereby my kid, living on a boat, is educated to the standards of my
land-based jurisdiction, and receives the standard credits and
credentials.

And, if he proves able, is allowed to accelerate his learning at his
own pace in subjects of his choosing.

This would require flexibility on the part of the issuing schoolboard,
but as I live in a city of several million, and know of several fellow
citizens who've taught kids on boats, AND it is anticipated that my
wife will have earned a teaching certificate by then and herself will
be the "in-house" teacher, I don't think we, with the use of modern
communications, patience and the stimulating environment of the sea,
will have a lot of trouble. The kid's already bright, willfull and
motivated to learn at 3 3/4...I expect he'll be running plots by age
eight G.

R.

"prodigal1" wrote
Vito wrote:
snip

And if I'm to compare several candidates I want to see scores on
standardized tests.

The results of standardized testing provide only at best a simplistic ....

But they are the best we have. Suppose I have 5 or 6 ap's for one trainee
job. I don't have time to do an in-depth background check then interview
each of them. I'm going to pick 1 or 2 that look the best based on their
job ap and resume. If 1 or 2 have diplomas with high grades I'll interview
them and if that goes well hire one of them. The rest won't even get
interviewed. That's life.

Vito wrote:
I don't have time to do an in-depth background check then interview
each of them....

jeezus Vito, if _you_ don't have the time to do your due diligence...who
will? and if you don't...

"prodigal1" wrote in message
...
Vito wrote:
I don't have time to do an in-depth background check then interview
each of them....

jeezus Vito, if _you_ don't have the time to do your due diligence...who
will? and if you don't...

I don't owe anybody 'due dilligence'. I just need to hire somebody to do a
job and if (s)he can I'm happy and my boss is happy. I have my own work to
do. I have neither time nor any obligation to tease an applicants
qualifications out of him. It is up to the applicant to present them and
make them as creditable as possible. It is a parent's duty to get their
kids the credentials they'll need to succeed as adults. You wanna go play
instead you shouldn't have had kids.

Vito wrote:

I don't owe anybody 'due dilligence'.

Vito, you owe yourself/your employer _your_ due diligence. Since you
don't seem to know:
a) what that means or
b) what consequences await those who don't take care of their own business,
there's not much more we have to communicate about

"prodigal1" wrote
Vito wrote:
I don't owe anybody 'due dilligence'.

Vito, you owe yourself/your employer _your_ due diligence.

Yes - to the extent that I hire qualified, capable employees. I have been
very successful at doing so. But NO, I do not owe every applicant an
interview or an in-depth test to determine his/her qualifications. Rather,
the burden in on the applicant to show me enough potential to be worth
interviewing.

there's not much more we have to communicate about

True.