In article <hh1k42lm6svmiugvjh9qjtkg5bqid2olp8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Serial Killfiler <alXXhuriyeh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 20 Apr 2006 10:01:10 -0400, hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman
>Rubin) wrote:
>>In article <g72b421kp1drridlksm9iqf65c7gtatc5v@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>Serial Killfiler <alXXhuriyeh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:12:33 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>>><lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>"Seveigny" <seveigny@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> My students engage in extra curricular activities, they are on
>>>>>s****t teams, they work. Those activities seem to be on equal or
greater
>>>>>im****tance than their cl*****. Who is to blame for that?
Should s****ts teams be related to schools? This becomes
of greater im****tance than education. Provide good
education for those WILLING and able; for the rest,
provide what they are willing and able to manage.
>>>>Those who feel that no one, especially kids, should be obliged to work
>>>>more than 7-8 hours per day, including lunch and coffee breaks.
Lunch is typically limited to less than a half hour, and
schools do not provide coffee breaks.
>>>Our students don't work 7-8 hrs. a day at school. If you add up the
>>>hall transition time, breaks and the few minutes at least needed to
>>>settle and dismiss them (plus time eaten up in tasks like passing out
>>>papers) we are lucky if 5-6 hrs. a day of full-attention learning is
>>>going on for any individual kid.
>>Wasted time still has to be counted. That student is
>>involved for the 7-8 hours.
>Not really. Lots of time is lost for this or that. Shortening the
>school days would not eliminate the loss of time.
It would, if done intelligently. I do not believe that a
good course should meet every day at ANY level.
>>Also, who needs "full
>>attention" learning? The bright cannot stand that
>>much boredom, even in courses at their level, which
>>the schools seem unable to teach. The instructors
>>should teach the concepts, what is behind the details
>>in the textbook, and generally not the textbook. That
>>should be for the student to read.
>Again, you work from your prejudices rather than from experience. All
>of our AP level courses are taught either by adjunct college faculty
>or by teachers with a degree in that field. They're certainly on the
>level with the TAs you at your university think undergrads should be
>content with.
Frankly, no. The TAs are bright, and have not had the
beating down required by the educationists. They have
also not been teaching the same material over and over
yet. The educationists' practice of having the same
people teach the same courses year after year is a great
mistake; as the golf saying goes, "practice makes perfect
your mistakes".
The AP courses are NOT good. They were not created by
the subject matter scholars, but by those who continue
the practice of teaching by memorization and routine
computation. Even fairly good students can read that
material, and do not need to waste time listening to
anyone repeating it, or the lengthy process of looking
at the presentation of routine examples. They should
read the book in 1/3 the time or less, do the hardest
problems they can and, if necessary, get a little help.
>And you're very misinformed if you think the bright ones bore easily.
>I do not find that to be the case. They get bored when the work is
>too easy or the pace too slow. When engaged, most of them work hard.
>The bright usually see a benefit to competing, and are willing to give
>their best.
Competing in what? Giving answers to unenlightening
questions? Memorizing trivia? Seeing who can do the
most problems in a given time? Seeing who can get the
highest grades on a bad test?
This is irrelevant. There was a posting on the mailing
list for the gifted about a child who understood very well
what arithmetic was and how to do word problems, but who
was not the one who could blurt out answers quickly. The
teacher did not think he was good.
>>Typical excellent home schooling has less than 3 hours
>>of instruction, and that is as it should be.
>When you work as a tutor you no longer have to juggle the needs and
>variations among 30+ kids.
The schools have to get rid of the idea of heterogeneous
cl*****; this includes universities. Heterogeneous cl*****
were the imposition from the Prussian schools, and later
extended by the educationists who believed social age
grouping was more im****tant than learning.
You work in a university, and you think
>anyone can do anything in a committee faster or more efficiently than
>as a pair?
Often this is the case.
Are you sure you want to tell this newsgroup that a
>committee of 30+ can do the same task as a pair in the same time?
A class is NOT a committee, and should not be considered one.
A committee should be a group of people, selected according to
their abilities, to decide how something should be done. They
are not expected to learn the basic material in the process;
each contributes his or her expertise to the problem at hand.
>>>School hrs. here in US are seemingly longer than in other places but
>>>in other countries much more homework is given to be done during the
>>>out of school times. This makes for 8-10 hrs. a day for most
>>>students-- at least in European schools. Very few of our students
>>>really work that much.
>>Homework designed to help the student learn is good;
>>homework designed to be part of a grade is not. Nor
>>should students do easy problems; they already know
>>how, and thus get nothing except a little practice.
>Pure platitudes. But remember that you aren't going to get
>individualized service at these deep discount prices.
You can get fairly individualized service at comparable
prices if you set up relatively homogeneous cl*****, and
allow students to move through the program at their
individual rates. However, the present "service" from
the schools is atrocious, and does not help those with
mental abilities from developing them.
>>>Students are indeed paid for the credits they earn. The credits work
>>>like a voucher when they seek employment later on. The quality points
>>>used to calculate GPAs have real monetary value, because they
>>>determine what scholar****ps you get, if any, for colleges, and from
>>>which "brand level" college you will get a degree.
>>This is part of the stupidity which pervades the
>>educationist system. In fact, many good high schools
>>now refuse to divulge the students' grades or class
>>rank. When advising graduate students, or interviewing
>>job candidates, it is necessary to find out what the
>>contents of their courses were; the titles and grades
>>mean nothing. This is not new; quite a long time ago,
>>a student who got a government fellow****p, with A's
>>in his undergraduate courses at another institution,
>>could not handle even the corresponding courses at mine.
>At the same time people like you say all this, you run screaming from
>any reforms that would actually make schools look or function
>differently than they did "when I was in school."
This is nonsense. We do look with horror on what the
educationists propose; there is no longer the interest
in improving elementary mathematics, because this cannot
be done gradually, and the teacher cannot handle the
concepts needed. To have educational reforms, I regret
to have to say that 90% of the people in the schools of
education are incapable of doing good.
There is nothing
>more sure than the reality that everyone says schools are failures,
>but no one will let any significant changes happen.
Let significant changes happen; this requires giving up
the types of changes made by the educationists; it requires
giving up the idea of heterogeneous cl*****, of weak projects,
and other such silliness. It requires giving up the idea
of "objective" tests, and of "relevance".
>>>Calling schoolwork a chore is stupid and shortsighted.
Then stop making it a chore. No grading of assignments,
and no asking students to do what they know how to do.
High school is
>>>a sieve that divides those prepared for higher status jobs from those
>>>who will probably earn far less and have fewer choices. We don't have
>>>to like that fact, but we do have to live with it-- and adapt.
And the educationists and the NCLB people are trying
to eliminate this difference.
>>It is not a chore if it is devoted to learning and
>>understanding, not just memorization and routine.
>>This is exactly the opposite of what is being done
>>now. Facts can be looked up, and routine computations
>>done by machine. But what does it mean? This cannot
>>be memorized or looked up, and the teachers mostly do
>>not know it now, and can no longer learn it.
>You can't talk meaning with an empty head. Kids do need some
>foundational knowledge, whether you think it dull or not.
Foundational knowledge, yes. Foundational knowledge
in mathematics consists of the concepts and structure,
not in learning to carry out arithmetic manipulations.
Foundational knowledge in a language consists in
learning the grammatical structure, including how
words are derived from others, not in memorizing how
to ask to go to the bathroom. The same goes for other
subjects.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
|
