In article <2ibv4295n5h743mchmfbn1n62evc7jm2n2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Serial Killfiler <alXXhuriyeh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>Probably true - we take the 40 hour work week as a God-given right.
>>No, we don't. I don't know a single professional who works just 40
>>hrs.
>I believe that salaried professionals are still a minority in our
>society.
This also applies to unsalaried professionals.
>>These days, if you don't live to work, you don't get ahead.
>That is sad. And while it may be true, especially of those who WANT
>to get ahead, I think that most of society is in a state of passive
>revolt against it, doing no more than they are obliged to - unless
>they see a specific reward in it for themselves in terms of future
>advancement or immediate pay benefit.
This is encouraged by the schools. Instead of having
students do enough exercises so they can understand the
material, or to get help if they cannot, they assign a
fixed set of exercises, which may do a few in the middle
some good. Then good ones know how already, so it does
them no good, while some of the "too difficult" ones
might, and the weak students, who get through the homework
with great effort and the help of their parents, still do
not understand it.
>>We're fooling our kids if we don't do what we can to prepare them for
>>a world of rising living costs, falling wages, and a shrinking middle
>>class.
>Requiring longer unpaid hours that most will in fact refuse to work
>won't prepare them for anything except further passive resistance
>throughout their lives.
But letting them learn to the extent of their ability
is what is needed.
>>>>Students are indeed paid for the credits they earn.
>>>in school.
>>>For kids whose long term focus is far less developed than adults,
>>>eventual payment is not the same thing as being paid cash immediately,
>>>just as they do when they mow someone's lawn for them.
>>Just because some kids are too stupid to understand this does not mean
>>that all kids are too stupid to understand.
>I agree. But I think the rising number of high school kids who work
>part time to get immediate paychecks while letting their homework go,
>reflect the very strong orientation towards immediate reward in our
>society.
This is assuming that they would learn from their homework.
Most of the present homework has to be in the opposite
category, as the teachers now think.
>And the school system is supposed to be for the m*****, and not for
>the exceptional kid Like Herman who can motivate, and indeed, can
>educate himself.
The exceptional kid cannot educate himself well if he is
tied up with school, and denied access to the fundamental
materials. Did I benefit from not knowing of the existence
of algebra until I was 12 years old? Did that bright
minority student who almost flunked out of college because
nobody had pointed out that he could formulate work problems
in symbols himself, which he had not been taught, benefit
from the way mathematics is mistaught in the schools?
Does the bright child, quite motivated, do a reasonable job
of educating himself with no guidance, or negative guidance?
Could Einstein have done what he did if he had the current
inner city high school education, and then gone to a weak
liberal arts college? He would have come out of college
not knowing the existence of the mathematics and physics
which he had in the good Swiss high schools of the time.
>>Anyway, as the sharp
>>growth of adult ed demonstrates, lots of people eventually realise
>>that what they didn't do at 16, 18 or 20 has harmed their ability to
>>survive in the world of the declining middle class.
>Or it means that they realize that continuing advancement requires
>continuing new pieces of paper, whether in fact you learn something in
>those cl***** or not. After all, how many teachers in this forum have
>applauded the usefulness of their inservices, or even of their grad
>level courses?
The usefulness of a course may be in its clarification of
ideas, not necessarily in the material learned. My knowledge
of general topology, now often not even taught, greatly
clarified my understanding of the topology of probability
distributions on metric spaces, although it can all be done
without the generality provided.
And if something is needed, it generally cannot be added on
later if its existence is not known, or if a lot of simple
background is needed. Education, especially at the lower
levels, should be for the distant future, and not necessarily
have "direct im****tance" at the present time.
--
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
|
