RM> But no exit exams and no national test....
MS>Ford, Chrysler, and GM each have their own _separate_ 
MS>quality-control procedures, including "exit exams".
MS>Just as there is no national, industry-standard quality-control
MS>system on car makers, quality control in education does not 
MS>require national standards.
RM> First of all, there ARE national standards, as well as state
RM> standards, for auto manufacturers, so this is a poor example
MS>Not on "reliability" items, only on safety standards 
MS>does the federal government impose standards.
We're not getting back to that old pattern of you saying
something silly, and when confronted you redefine the terms
and argument, are we?  Btw, you consider such things as gas
consumption, safety equipment, collision requirements as
being "reliability items"?  Or is it just that you get to
define "reliability items" anyway you want?
RM> To a certain extent, NY has exit exams in courses called the
RM> Regents exams... They have been "working" for a good many
RM> years now.
MS>This is your own acknowledgement of quality control in 
MS>K-12 education being possible without national standards.
RM> SOME quality control... If SOME quality control is a good
RM> thing, why is MORE necessarily a bad thing?
MS>You can soon end up illustrating the "law of diminishing returns".
Maybe... SOMEtimes...
MS>Spending increasingly more money or time on quality control pays 
MS>big dividends for the first few dollars (or hours), but then 
MS>rapidly produces less return.
You're ASSuming that we're dealing with a certain type of
curve, AND that we're already at the peak of the curve?  
That's assuming a great deal....
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * Don't be held back by yesterday's DOS!  Try today's OS/2!
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------