in that case you should double check your math, because it doesn't work out like that

> If doctors cannot pay back their student loans, it doesn't matter.

this is plain dishonesty. there have been actual discussions on how a significant number of physicians in the USA retire or semi-retire in their 50s!

that's a really good point, actually. in every situation i can think of where someone is looking at your grade (always admission to the next step in the ladder, in whatever form), you are being compared to people "from the same time" as you.

and i'd like to reiterate how difficult it would be to have a "stable" standard of mastery, no matter how nice. technical fields change a lot, and fast, these days. all across STEM, in 20 years everything changes. everything's so niche, as well, sometimes it may be hard to compare two degrees with the same name of different institutions. maybe we could do it with the fundamentals (mathematics and physics)? but look at a textbook from 100 years ago (say, Whittaker and Watson) and you'll find that even this changes. and even if the field doesn't change, the world does: i'm imagining how old-timers could claim that in their time information wasn't so easily accessible.

assuming that by "steelman" here you mean "the justification", i believe the point is that a curved grade shows how you compare to others. the idea is that "getting 40% of the answers right" is meaningless if you don't know how hard the test is, so you'd rather have a grade that says "top 5% of the class".

this what i see as the justification, at least. not an endorsement of the idea

it's crazy to see that mentioned so non-chalantly. my expectation is that the teacher, when they grade, is meant to be impartial, as if they were doing nothing more than taking a measurement of the student's work, you could say (this is why, i believe, we value standardized tests in some settings, even though they are worse in other aspects). it's the student who is responsible for the grade. a teacher not being allowed to give F's to everyone suggests a corruption of the system to me.

can you share more? what pressures teachers not to do this, for example?

i'd be interested in a source for this. i did not find in the article you cite mention of historical trends.

that's hilarious, since today, as many other days, i am literally looking forward to watching HBO when i get home from work

though i take you were thinking about counting clock cycles or something in which case surely your register would overflow

but from the point of view of the company as a whole there is a difference: code created by some programmer is understood by that programmer, while code created by AI is understood by nobody

IMO a good middle ground could be attained by everyone having some understanding of the legal system. we could use school for that. i mean, we cover calculus and ancient history, it's not like covering law to some extent would be harder

at that point why not just use something precise like a programming language? have there been efforts in that direction? genuine questions