@visakanv Please note that my definition of doing well on a test was "Anything which resulted in the highest possible score or a score higher than the highest possible score which I would not have to bring up in confession."
Strongest claim about me and teachers: most happy, most of time.
Strongest claim about me and teachers: most happy, most of time.
@visakanv This included e.g. a simulated cooperative trading game in high school history where the rulebook included the scoring rubric on the last page.
"Mr. B, the scoring rubric is on the last page. Am I allowed to use it?" "Go for it Patrick." "GUYS ONLY BUY RAILROADS."
"Mr. B, the scoring rubric is on the last page. Am I allowed to use it?" "Go for it Patrick." "GUYS ONLY BUY RAILROADS."
@visakanv Some people's proud moment from high school was a first love or winning the big game. Mine was Mr. B saying, after I was utterly ineffective at convincing people that intuitions about diversification were not rewarded by the scoring rubric, "Class: listen to Patrick next time."
@visakanv Some teachers would, if they were asked for reflections, probably say "It defeats the educational purpose of homework to simply skip several weeks of it even if you have done the math and know you will get a 91.5%, which rounds to 92% and therefore an A, regardless of doing it."
@visakanv That rubric: You got one buy a turn in a game with a pre-announced number of turns. The scoring rubric was cash available plus holdings value, based on a chart. Holdings within an industry were cost + 5% at one investment, + 10% at 2, etc.
Railroad was most expensive thing.
Railroad was most expensive thing.
@visakanv So the dominant strategy was deploy all the capital in one industry and maximize the risk-free multiplier you got for being concentrated in that industry.
If you tried it for any industry other than railroads, you would have unspent money at end of game.
If you tried it for any industry other than railroads, you would have unspent money at end of game.
