Menu CATEGORIES

Connect with us

CATEGORIES Menu

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.

 

14 Comments

  • varun says:

    @varun the first two link to the same article.

    1. Bwog says:

      @Bwog thank you; it has been corrected

  • there's says:

    @there's nothing wrong with testing 4-year-olds. It’s not like they’re being placed in a worse class if they fail the exam, they’re just not admitted into a class for the gifted. The parents just don’t want to live with the fact that they’re raising a normal child and not some savant.

  • no parody of says:

    @no parody of Miriam Datsuckscocksky today?

    1. miriam says:

      @miriam has had enough grief from this site, regretably. plus, I think she’s done the “it’s okay to be a virgin” piece before…or at least someone has.

      1. Columnists says:

        @Columnists Did you guys catch some heat for ragging on the Spec columnists?

  • Do you really says:

    @Do you really think those tests do a good job of finding the “gifted” four-year-olds? Some measure has to be used because there are fewer spots than applicants, but I’m sure anything purporting to separate out kids of that age is hugely flawed.

    1. whether or not says:

      @whether or not those tests are 100% accurate is another issue. If you’re coming out with a new exam, there’s always going to be a “first” group of people who take it, no matter how you go about it. The test will stabilize with time and multiple administrations. There’s no other way about it.

  • yeah says:

    @yeah She sort of has – two years ago. But it was about losing her virginity, which I guess isn’t EXACTLY the same thing…

  • i really says:

    @i really don’t want to turn this into a miriam-bashing, but style and topic aside: the name of a department was wrong (seriously, how hard is that to catch?) and the article referenced services the department doesn’t offer (support groups?). plus, even though judith steinhart was pretty well-liked by (or at least well-known to) a lot o students, she doesn’t work there anymore. why not interview someone who does?

  • CML says:

    @CML Hmm…I would generally reflexively object to something like testing four-year-olds for gifted admissions, but many of my friends from elementary/secondary education and I benefitted immensely from a similar policy-I think one’s performance on an aptitude test at a young age tells us much more than we’d like to believe.

  • ON Miriam says:

    @ON Miriam OK. Either Miriam is a sexually experienced college womyn and whose views on virginity have zero credibility as far as I’m concerned, or she’s speaking from personal experience on the topic, in which case the rest of her columns have no credibility.

    So what’s it gonna be?

  • re: doesn't offer says:

    @re: doesn't offer Health Services does offer support groups, dude.

    1. yeah says:

      @yeah but the department she says offers them doesn’t.

  • Have Your Say

    What should our staffer name her pet raccoon?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    I'd wager that the people who "downvoted" this haven't taken a hard science class since High School. In fact, it's (read more)
    SGA Talks About Sustainability
    October 23, 2019
    the virgin columbus day vs the chad election day (read more)
    ESC Meets In A Different Room
    October 22, 2019
    How and why is this an article (read more)
    Bye-Bye Bold And Beautiful: Barnard Announces New Taglines
    October 22, 2019
    Columbia should celebrate Columbus Day and have the day off. (read more)
    ESC Meets In A Different Room
    October 22, 2019

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel