Roller Coasters and Brain Injury:Fact or Fiction

Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:04 PM

Jeff said:
I had a 2.7 GPA in high school because I was bored with it and din't do the work. My ACT score was 28 (better than 96% of the kids that took it that year). Yeah, grades aren't a measure of anything.

K3wl! I had a higher ACT score than Jeff (29)! I may be an f'ing ass, but I'm smarter than you! ;)

Seriously though, who gives a SH-- about anyone's credentials/degree/achievements. If you make a point that I disagree with, I'll state that disagreement. If I think your statements sound like those of a moron, then I'll call you a moron. The smartest people in the world can sound like a dumbass ("Sexual relations as defined to me..." and you're a Rhodes scholar). And occasionally, the most profound statements come from those of little formal schooling.

What am I trying to get at? ...Well actually, I dont remember anymore. :) But if you aren't prepared to have your ideas challenged and yes even being called a moron/idiot/ass then mabye you should keep your opinion to yourself in general, and for sure stay off the internet in particular.

Geez, when did everyone in the world get so thin skinned?!?

lata, jeremy

+0
Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:52 PM
Well I either set the curves, or my score is too high for a curve. For example for thermodynamics II, I got a pefect 100, and yet the curve was set at around 20 percent or so. So the most you could get was 100 points, but if you got 80% you got 100 also. That is not fair for the person that does exceptionally well, but helps the others stay motivated and continue to try and do better. Curves are needed. Alot of engineering profesors design the test, so that the average is 50 or below. Some of come out and said that. Others don't but when that happens there is usually not a curve or a very small one at that.

Believe me, there is no grade inflation. The college has A- and B+, where if you get an A- instead of an A (say a 91 instead of 95), you get 3.667 worth of quality points, instead of 4.0. So all A- would give you 3.667. I am probably top 2 or 3 in my class out of 100. But everyone that has made it this far in engineering is way above average, since half drop out and go to other majors (business, communications, etc, for various reasons).

Mamoosh, alot of companies that hire engineers want at least a 3.0. And they have your resume, and transcript, why would they ask you when it is right in front of them? I don't think it matters if you have a 3.5 or 4.0 so much. Both are pretty good, but I think it does matter if you have a 2.3 or something like that in college. Really I try to learn the material first, and the good grades comes along with that. Knowing the technical material is important since you will need it for the job.

I use pretty much the majority of the engineer concepts in school or my co-op. I never understand the people who said you will never use half of what you learn. I think those people are not the ones designing cars, bridges, gas turbine engines, etc. I use way more than half, probably 70 to 80%. But then again my position is very technical based and is what I like. I am sure if you have an engineering degree but wanted a more general manager type position you would use less. But I just think the people that say that, really forgot half of what they learned since they never tried to really understand it. They just memorized or prepared for a test, and said I am glad I am done with this crap.

This thread is more about academics now then the orginal topic of roller coasters in the brain. Not that I really care or even think there is more to discuss on the orginal topic. Just a question, has anyone actually tried any of my links? Well only a few work, since they were online sources from 2 years ago. But Fixed Theme Park Study one does work. That was one of the two comprehensive studies, yet no one has quoted from it or cited it for defense on their position, except for me. I just think no one even tried them, since I think at least one would comment that the links were outdated. I tried them to see, and realized it. I still have them printed off, but oh well, I doubt anyone would really read them anyway.

And of course I will kep replying when I have time to this thread if someone questions my ability or character. I just want to know, does any of it have to do with my prior posting? Or the fact that I am not a regular for that long? Just wondering, since I think regarding message boards, senority is kind of pointless. I think ones knowledge about roller coasters has nothing to do if they posted 10 times or 1000 times. I think senority is worth exactly how much I pay to use this site. Oh yeah I am not a member, so that would be nothing.

+0
Thursday, September 22, 2005 11:22 PM
As a matter of fact, moosh, there's this guy standing here holding a lighter beneath my collection of Park Maps telling me that if I click, he flicks his Bic.

It's like a bad accident... you can't resist looking and I just have to see what the 16 posts since my last comment are. Like I mentioned before, the nastiness isn't restricted to this thread. Seems like in the past two or three weeks, it's been happening more and more. Even the spelling and grammar corrections have gotten mean. So what gives?

+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 3:06 AM
The offseason is coming, RGB...people are getting grumpy. Thankfully there are a lot of exciting announcements coming soon that'll take people's minds off closed parks. 2005 is going to be a good year for new coasters! ;)
+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 10:16 AM
Apparently, Mr. BeastFan, you have no idea what grade inflation is. What you described is exactly grade inflation to a "T". Any time a test is "curved" it is grade inflation. Actually, I don't put much value on grades, when I evaluate and assess student abilities, but I have to because of the accountability teachers face in this day and age. (That is a whole other story you can email about if you want my opinions.) But I digress, Just because you can take tests better than others, does not mean that you are a better person or know more than a particular person. Now I know that I have not seen any of the tests that you have taken, but I am willing to bet that they were not written very well if you were able to do so well and others did so poorly. You say that curves are not fair to those who do exceptionally well, but I think that curves are not fair to anyone taking the class.
+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 10:22 AM
moosh, 2005? or 2006 ;) I say Both are good years :)
+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 3:58 PM
Wow, I can hardly wait for 2005 to begin!!! :)
+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 5:24 PM
Well grade inflation would imply that peoples overall gpa were higher than normal. I don't think that is the case. But the first year or so, they try to weed out the lesser students or people that do not work very hard. So in early classes such as maybe statics, dynamics, or even physics, they have tests were the average is designed to be a 50-60.

This way the people who don't have what it takes for whatever reason (lazy, not smart enough, not interested in engineering, etc), will not pass the class and will either drop the class or switch majors altogether.

But since around half the class is gone by the third year, you can't just fail 50 percent of the students in third year and beyond classes. There is already a shortage of engineers, so having such a small graduating class would not make sense. So they still have difficult tests that challange the really good students, but the decent students need the curve to pass and get a decent grade. So they have to curve unless you want so many people to not pass. And really unless you have been through an engineering program and understand how much technical and mathematical knowledge it requires, you would realize why they curve.

It is the same with physics, chemistry, and other demanding majors. According to my uncle that was an electrical engineer at the same school, not much has changed. They still curved back then and gave hard test. And half switched majors after year 1. So I don't by the theory that back in my school days there was no such thing as a curve, and you had to earn your grade. The grade distrubtion for my program is likely the same now, then it was back then.

I don't mind discussing this, but I am actually more excited about PKI's new rides. I think that has more of my attention than some research topic I did a paper for 2 years ago. No offense, but I think people on here were just mad that I would not admit that I was wrong and that a 1 and a billion probability is still a risk. I don't care one way or another. Some call it not a health risk, others call it a small risk. It depends on the wording used by the people who did the research. Bottom line is that suffering a brain injury on a roller coaster is not something to be worried about. It is not even the most common injury on a roller coaster at all. Also roller coaster injuries are few and far between to start with, so this issue cooled off after the papers showed how slim the chances were of suffering a brain injury due to a roller coaster.

+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 5:30 PM
I can't believe there was even an argument over all this. I think Jeff originally compared the brain damage risk from riding coasters to sneezing. Am I wrong? It was so many words back up there I could have forgotten. What's all this about grades and doing well in school?

I think someone might have been riding too many coasters 'round here. ;)

+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 6:43 PM

Well grade inflation would imply that peoples overall gpa were higher than normal.

No it implies that grades are higher than they should be.

But the first year or so, they try to weed out the lesser students or people that do not work very hard. So in early classes such as maybe statics, dynamics, or even physics, they have tests were the average is designed to be a 50-60.

Those are poorly designed tests. I am not saying that they do not exist, but I personally think that this sort of logic is wrong. School exists for students to learn, not to weed out bad students.

So they still have difficult tests that challange the really good students, but the decent students need the curve to pass and get a decent grade. So they have to curve unless you want so many people to not pass. And really unless you have been through an engineering program and understand how much technical and mathematical knowledge it requires, you would realize why they curve.

No they curve because they have some reason for not making good assessments of their students. I have taken many engineering classes as well as many classroom theory courses, so yes I do understand why they curve tests.

They still curved back then and gave hard test. And half switched majors after year 1. So I don't by the theory that back in my school days there was no such thing as a curve, and you had to earn your grade. The grade distrubtion for my program is likely the same now, then it was back then.

No my argument is that curving, or moving the bell curve to make "C students" (I hate using that terminology) get "A's", is a very old idea and needs to be scrapped because many parents believe that if a student does not get an "A" the student is failing.

I don't mind discussing this either, but I care more about the new expansion at HW. Little risk does not equal no risk. I am glad that you have finally admitted that you were wrong. Hopefully you will be a great engineer that avoids mistaking that little risk equals no risk, because that is why great engineering feats fail.

+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 7:06 PM
I never said I was wrong? I said I am done arguing over such a stupid thing as little risk equals no risk. I said that depending on the wording, some said there was no risk involved, and other said there was a small minute risk but not something to be concerned with.

I personally feel there is no risk of brain injury, but a small risk of injury on a roller coaster. The small risk is due to the slim possibility of rider error, ride operator error, mechanical failure, improper maintenance etc. The risk of brain injury however I feel is really not there, and there never was conclusive evidence that the roller coaster was the cause of any of the 20 cases. Just 9 out of the 20 were it was just plausible. Also the amount of brain injuries associated with unknown causes, is on the order of magnitude several times more than the 9 cases might be due to a roller coaster ride. It could just be that during a roller coaster ride, that an unknown cause not associated with the actual ride caused the brain injury.

That is not unreasonable considering that there was only 9 cases out of 3.1 billion rides, and that there were around 1000 or more brain injury cases associated with unknown causes. Maybe those 9 rides out of the 3.1 billion, the person riding the coaster, had a brain injury due to an unknown cause, and he and his doctor wrongly associated it with the roller coaster. That is likely why the panel was hesistant on concluding that the roller coaster was the cause, and noted this in their report.

I think the curve never gives a C score and move it up to an A. It is usually setup where it only helps the student who gets a 61 move up to 70. Some profesors use: 100*SQRT(TestScore) = New TestScore. So a 100 is still a 100, but a 81 is a 90, and a 64 is a 80. But a 50 would be a 70 and passing. So it just moves more people to the passing C and B range, but still makes it not easy to get an A. This is just one type of curve, but usually a curve is not more than 10 points.

I will likely be a great engineer. But I think it is not the issue of saying this is a risk or not. It is quantifying the risk involved, and this involves designing for fatigue, static failure, etc. There is always a slight risk that something will fail due to the engineering, however with good engineering practice, this risk can be minimized.

However that does not mean there is a risk associated with everything. I don't think there is a risk of brain injury associated with watching t.v, using the computer, reading, etc.

+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 7:50 PM
<pounds head on the table>

MAKE IT STOP! PLEASE! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

Katie, ok had to make a funny, begin the fighting once again.

+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 8:00 PM

Mamoosh said:
The offseason is coming, RGB...people are getting grumpy. Thankfully there are a lot of exciting announcements coming soon that'll take people's minds off closed parks. 2005 is going to be a good year for new coasters!

So it was! Wow! Did I just travel through time and back or is Moosh really getting senile? ;-)

-Tina

+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 8:17 PM
Yes I hear Dorney Park is getting a new rollercoaster for 2005, it'll probably be an Intamin giga, or maybe the first B&M giga, but we really can't know for sure can we? 2005 is a long way ahead ;)
+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 8:27 PM
^I hear Great Adventure is getting a rocket coaster for 2005, taller and faster than Dragster. I also heard it was going to be VERY reliable.

Cool!

-Tina

+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 9:22 PM
*whistles*.. wow..

This thread has gotten very amusing to me..

First he *still* won't admit that very small risk != no risk (he mentions that "people got mad" because he wouldn't admit it.. he doesn't actually admit it). Then he goes on to not realize what grade inflation is.. amazing.

Beast Fan, I do have to give you points for determination, though. As soon as you can accept the fact that you can be wrong at times (not debating whether you are now or not here.. just that you have to realize it can happen), admit it, and don't try and weasel your way out of it when you are, you will indeed be a great engineer. Why? You're not going to listen to the people who say "it can't be done." That same determination is what led to many of the best discoveries of science (I don't think I need to actually type the famous light bulb quote...)

Note: I'm not being sarcastic about that.

+0
Friday, September 23, 2005 11:46 PM
New idea for a topic: Pounding head on tables and Brain Injury-- negligible or no risk.

P.S. Has anyone heard what GADv is going to name that rocket coaster they're going to be getting in 2005?

+0
Saturday, September 24, 2005 12:12 AM
Well a certain Doctor said that the cause of the brain injury could have been the act of banging the head on the table but only a few cases out of the 10 billion are considered plausible. SOOOOO... I conclude no risk! Bang all you want!
+0
Saturday, September 24, 2005 1:17 AM
What about the risk of brain injury from being on the unnamed rocket coaster when it flies off the track in a test run?
+0
Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:25 AM
well one wouldn't have much brain to be injured after an accident like that...
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...