In article <blrn42ho2k2evoo65lhk0r6pe3ninl2i4g@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
toto <scarecrow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 23 Apr 2006 14:11:26 -0400, hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman
>Rubin) wrote:
>>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.
>LOL. Maybe s****ts should not be in the schools, but then YOUR
>university has its s****ts teams competing in the Big Ten Conferences.
>Are you willing to take a pay cut if your college cuts out all s****ts?
It is not clear that a pay cut would ensue; at this time,
s****ts costs more than it brings in. I definitely would
be willing to take a pay cut if Purdue became a real
educational institution, with real standards.
>>>>>>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.
>However, passing time from class to class occurs on a regular
>basis (every 45 minutes or so) and that's *wasted* time since
>it is not educational.
This is unavoidable, but it is less than one class time.
>Aside from that, I would imagine that you would consider study
>halls and some cl***** as *wasted* time.
VERY definitely. Study halls are poor places to study,
in any case. They may be places where a quick routine
assignment can be done, or a textbook can be reread, if
necessary. The facilities for anything else are not
present at all.
And any class which does not develop knowledge and
understanding is of little value. Of even less value
are those cl***** which propagandize, and this includes
much of "literature". I do not approve of banning them,
but I do not approve of assigning them, either.
.................
>I do think that high school *could* be run more like colleges.
>I don't think that this is true though below the high school
>level. Young children do need to be supervised. The fact
>is that the world is more dangerous for young children today,
>so just allowing them to be on their own during some ****tion
>of the day is not feasible.
My son, before age 7, went from class to class. Using
electronic cl***** makes it easier to separate supervision
from learning. Possibly half of many cl***** is
supervision rather than learning.
>>>>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.
>Most students have never been taught to read math texts
>and cannot get through them without help even in college,
>Herman.
And whose fault is that? One does not have to be taught to
read math texts; what the schools are doing is making it
harder to read them. They have to realize that
memorization can be worse than useless, and to try to
understand the ideas. The college students have been
brainwashed into thinking that mathematics consists of
formulas to solve a few types of problems. Nobody taught
me to read math texts, and AFAIK at that time nobody
considered it necessary to teach anyone how to read them.
>>>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.
>Anecdotal evidence about *one* child, Herman. Where's the
>research?
Speed is only one part of intelligence. In any case, what
is the point of that stupid competition? The aim should
be to learn, not to get grades. I have plenty of evidence
that those who get high grades are often those who have
not understood the material, and will forget the ideas.
>>>>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.
..................
--
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
|
