"Education"

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I agree. I've been there twice for tournaments, and I spent a lot of time wandering the campus. The plaza in front of the chapel is especially nice.

[goat starer]

. Though you wouldn't get much time off from the course to do any serious acting.  Be careful to avoid its Thames Valley rival though. Terrible place

couldnt agree more. hate the place. though despite having to write 16 3000 word essays a term instead of the uk standard of 2 i still found plenty of time for acting. amphetamines can expand time no end!

PS. this is NOT an endorsement of drug taking unless you want heart palpitations and a 2.2

[Griffin NoName]

. Though you wouldn't get much time off from the course to do any serious acting. 

That's covered by the Actor's Third. Apart from those that get Firsts anyway.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

First of all, I had no problem with the term "work group" as such (although it might imply child labour a little;)) but more, how does a child decide what it is good in? At the age of nine, the majority of children don't know what they want to do in their future, hell, I wanted to be an astronaout, policeman, firefighter and similiar till the age of like ten... At the age of nine, a child has not yet made it's own opinion (in majority of cases) about the world, the parents still decide a lot about a child't "hobbies"...

Heck... by my count, I've seriously pursued four different career paths*, and three of them** weren't even on my radar when I was in high school, including the one I ended up in.


*or five, if you include the stuff I do as a hobby and would do professionally if I could make a living wage at it... but can't, because you can't make a living wage at it on this continent.

** or four, if you count the above-mentioned hobby.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Exactly.
Whole regions of thought and possibilities open up in college. It's very hard to choose then (or now, in my case), much less in high school!

[Alpaca]

So, here's the rant about math education that I've had bottled up for a while.

The teaching of math seems to be more commonly attacked than the teaching of any other subject. One of the most common ideas I hear is to make Algebra optional. Because "why force kids to learn abstract concepts they'll never use?"

I find this argument extremely flawed. First, the fact is that Algebra is useful, and everybody uses it, whether they realize it or not, even though it's not being used in the abstract form found in the math class. But the arguments about practical application aside, I find the entire logic ludicrous. It's like saying "why should kids have to take English classes once they've achieved passable literacy in fifth grade?"

I think the cause of opposition to greater-than-basic math education isn't the material itself; it's the method of teaching. At some point between the purely practical applications of math taught in elementary school and, say, Algebra, since we're using that example, the curriculum focus shifts abruptly. Kid who have thus far only known math as a way to determine how much cow feed farmer Bob needs to buy if he has 26 cows are suddenly expected to jump into purely theoretical, abstract logical thinking in the language of math. It's now no longer a line graph of money vs. time. Instead, it's now y=a(t).

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with abstract mathematical thinking. I supremely enjoy my abstract math classes (I'll be taking AP Calculus BC this year). But the half-assed way math education is undertaken beyond elementary school can ruin the experience for anyone. Right now, abstract concepts are taught, but we pretend they aren't abstract. We have "word problems." "Bob invests $1000 at 4% interest compounded daily. How much money will he have after ten years? Look, kids! A practical application! Now that you see how you can use this 'in real life,' we can get back to talking about exponential functions, because now you'll obviously understand why there's such a thing as a horizontal asymptote!"

I think that's stupid. I learned exponential functions (formally, that is) freshman year of high school, so I'm going to compare that method of teaching to a ninth grade English class. The kids move through a number of vivid and exciting topics throughout the year: Types of conjunctions! Passive and active voice! Sentence structure! Of course, to show them how these things will apply "in real life," the English teacher would occasionally throw out innovative assignments, like: "Sheryl started a sentence with a baseball as the subject, but she now needs to tell her friend Karen that she caught it. Should Sheryl use the active or passive voice with the verb 'caught?' Well, that was exciting. Let's get back to diagramming sentences."

I dunno, maybe y'all have had different experiences in English education. Yes, of course, learning grammar and such is important and necessary. But there are two things that I've done through my entire educational career: reading and writing. And in the last few years, since late middle school, there's been no direct focus on spelling and grammar. If they've ever been alluded to, it was in the context of something I had read or something I had written. In other words, the abstract language concepts were applied to and taught through the practical application of English.

In math education, it's done the other way around: abstract concepts are taught, and then "practical" examples are forced into them. Once again, I've got nothing against abstract math education. I hope my calculus class doesn't change. But theory isn't for everyone. Before the level of math where pure theory is taught - wherever that's gonna be - students ought to have a choice. They can continue their math education in a theoretical direction suitable for those looking for a career in the sciences, or they can learn a more "day-to-day" variety. They'd acquire the same knowledge as they do under the present system, but differently. Right now, mathematically inclined students finally get to the high-level courses they want after dying of boredom for a few years, while those who aren't mathematically inclined struggle and barely make it through their math credit requirements, and then forget the abstract concepts they've never learned to apply.

Instead, they could branch off. I contend that for someone with the proper abilities and motivation, all of high school Algebra can be a one-year affair. Geometry and trigonometry can also be easily lumped together in a year. One year after "branching off," students who love math could be taking a proper statistics course. Or two years after "branching off," they could be in calculus.

On the other hand, students who don't like math for the sake of math can branch off into things that they actually will use. By the end of high school, they will have acquired the level of abstract mathematical knowledge they get under the present system, or more. But it'll be acquired in a way centered around problem-solving. Maybe they won't know all about graph shifts and functions, but when they look at a table of data, instead of guesstimating from the numbers they see, they'll visualize a graph and know what it means. And ALL of us see tables of data in real life.



Of course, all of this isn't ideal. It assumes the present overall conditions of our educational system: standardized and impersonal. I think that over at TOP, Chatty once posted something very nice about education reform to make it individualized. That's a beautiful vision. For now, though, I'm working with what I got: the system that I'm currently all tied up in.

[Aggie]

I think that's stupid. I learned exponential functions (formally, that is) freshman year of high school, so I'm going to compare that method of teaching to a ninth grade English class. The kids move through a number of vivid and exciting topics throughout the year: Types of conjunctions! Passive and active voice! Sentence structure! Of course, to show them how these things will apply "in real life," the English teacher would occasionally throw out innovative assignments, like: "Sheryl started a sentence with a baseball as the subject, but she now needs to tell her friend Karen that she caught it. Should Sheryl use the active or passive voice with the verb 'caught?' Well, that was exciting. Let's get back to diagramming sentences."

I dunno, maybe y'all have had different experiences in English education. Yes, of course, learning grammar and such is important and necessary. But there are two things that I've done through my entire educational career: reading and writing. And in the last few years, since late middle school, there's been no direct focus on spelling and grammar. If they've ever been alluded to, it was in the context of something I had read or something I had written. In other words, the abstract language concepts were applied to and taught through the practical application of English.

My formal English education was quite blatantly.... crap.  And mostly taught (in high school, at least 3/4 years) by a senile, possibly insane, teacher who took off a week every September to get the dope crop harvested.  Most of the grasp of theoretical language concepts I have comes from French.   

It's probably pretty apparent that most of my grasp of written English is based on science textbooks and personal reading, fleshed out by yakking on teh internets.  I used to dread creative writing (still don't like it much), as it was always approached in school by giving writing assignments, not by teaching how to develop a story.  Give me an essay please, or teach me how to write a bloody story!  And in 1st year college English (for technical writers), I was once accused by the professor of not putting any original thought into an essay....  um, duh?  I cited the *#&% references and reported the objective info, and dutifully based my subjective arguments/interpretations on that - the only bloody things I was ever actually taught to write was technical material, and pretty poorly at that! 

I've always taken joy in the theoretical manipulation of numbers but I feel I was cheated all along the way by the school system (I'm sure most of you have heard the "-1" story from Grade 1).  I was the top in my school in mathematics competitions - but got whupped in regional competions and in college calculus the first time around (passed, but when I can only get 75% of the final exam done in 3 hours - and pull pretty close to 100% on that 75% - something is up). I suspect there's a strong dose of 'small school' effects in my education; split classes in primary school, limited electives in high school (they taught Physics 12 every 2 years. ).

Point taken on splitting theoretical and practical maths, but Algebra is NOT optional!  It's the basis of damn near everything one will use in day-to-day applications (unit conversion, home economy, etc).  Ditto on geometry (heh, but I took more wood shop than anything else in HS, so it was always handy).

I have some deep reservations about the 'dumbing down' of Western school systems, and nearly as deep reservations about the workloads and competitive nature of East Asian systems... (which BTW produce WONDERFUL educational results at the expense of the student) is there a happy medium?


I get REALLY pissed off when science is treated as an elective.  IMO, today's world demands basic knowledge of biology and chemistry simply to feed oneself safely, and IMO there are MANY evils in this world that could be mitigated somewhat if science was properly taught all the way through the school system, rather than being footnoted in during the last few years of high school.  I'd personally love to see non-elective sciences being directed at practical applications for the 'non-science' kids, particularly in the areas of nutrition, health/hygene and the environment, and it needs to be a heck of a lot more engaging than what's currently being taught.  [/rant]

[Alpaca]

I guess I didn't make my "splitting up" idea clear enough. The point is not to reduce the mathematical material learned for less mathematically inclined kids - not by any means! They ought to learn as much or more than under the current system, but learn it in a way that's targeted at applications rather than theory. Meanwhile, the theoreticians can zoom through curriculum that's usually bogged down to a painfully slow pace by classes that try to teach mathematically talented and untalented kids at the same time.

Fully agree with you about science education. Here's my school's system: Freshman year, biology is absolutely required. Then, during the next three years, two science credits are required.

Sophomore year, I jumped straight to AP Physics. It was awesome. Then, last year, I had a scheduling conflict, so rather than go science-less, I decided to take Chem 1. Now, Chem 1 and Physics 1 are the two classes that people with no interest in science take. VERY basic. PAINFULLY basic. I had fun in Chem 1, though, since the teacher is awesome. Her doctorate is in Chemistry, but she knows stuff from all fields of physical science. While discussing simple things like ionic bonds, she and I would digress into discussions of the electron cloud model, and quantum physics, and whoosh!

Still, the class was not at that level, but the way she taught it was brilliant. She fully acknowledged that it was not for future Nobel Laureates in Chemistry. And so the emphasis throughout the whole thing was impact on life. We did the organic stuff, and the emphasis was on food, diet, health. We did hydrocarbon stuff, and the emphasis was on petroleum, conservation, all that. Water - conservation. And so forth. Even though I didn't get the raw scientific education I wanted that year, I still appreciated the class.

By the way, funny story. This year I'll be taking AP Chem. Funnily enough, I didn't take the prerequisite Chem 2 because of the scheduling conflict, but I talked to the teacher and she said that I could take the AP class. Told me to learn Chem 2 over the summer. Funnily enough, I didn't get the book until today. Funnily enough, school starts Monday.

This is going to be an "accelerated course." (I'm fully confident that I'll do it.)

[Aggie]

I guess I didn't make my "splitting up" idea clear enough. The point is not to reduce the mathematical material learned for less mathematically inclined kids - not by any means! They ought to learn as much or more than under the current system, but learn it in a way that's targeted at applications rather than theory. Meanwhile, the theoreticians can zoom through curriculum that's usually bogged down to a painfully slow pace by classes that try to teach mathematically talented and untalented kids at the same time.

I got it, but I think I butchered getting across that I got it in my post. ^^

Personally, I always did best to learn the theory, and then work it through some problems.  I quite enjoy word problems in the same way I like riddles, but they can be an extra level of complexity on a concept if one is not good at picking out pertinent info (another skill that is generally not taught at all).

        But I highly support making MOST of the 'hard' subjects life-skill based for those who
        aren't going on to further education after high school.  Math lends itself very well to
        applied skills.  I picked up some courses just for life skills, like a throwaway accounting
        elective course - taught me to do my taxes.

S'why I'm a chem kid... it's all pretty much applied algebra with lovely word problems - and explosions.  If you get a chance later in your education career, and you want to see some rather interesting modeling applications for moderately advanced math, try to pick up a population biology course; that and environmental organic chemistry (also lots of applied but simpler math) are what led me down the path to my current (math-deprived) job.

Sounds like your chem course was pretty close to what I'd like to see the 'basic' sciences address. 

Just shout if you need some extra help in AP Chem (I doubt you will) - I'm pretty rusty on the finer points, but I spent my first year of tech school re-teaching basic chemistry to the rest of the class in after class study sessions, since the teacher butchered it regularly - I got the highest marks in his classes (he taught 3 or 4 over the 2 years) because I slept through them... I found that when I paid attention I actually de-learned stuff I already knew.

Memorable quote from said teacher: "How much acid is in the pot"?  Indeed.  He used to go off on class-long analogies about sail boats.... 

[anthrobabe]

Alpaca--- you took AP Physics in sophmore year?
do you need/want/desire/go that way/ a girlfriend-- no not me
I have a daughter and I'm always looking for potential in the male population--she is straight so if you are then ??
I'm really kidding- she is a pain and only 17 herself  (please take no offense)

I'm taking math (Ok it is elementary algebra- yes I'm a senior, yes I put it off, yes I am sorry) right now and it is kicking my butt-- my university uses an online system called Aleks- we do attend class and all but I still need more one on one with it- I grasp it fine and then have issues with the exams( my retention is slow to hold it).

I am one of math untalented--- I agree, different classes for different uses/talents.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

she is a pain

Let Alpaca judge that by himself. 

[anthrobabe]

she is a pain

Let Alpaca judge that by himself. 

I'm trying to bait the hook--- I'm trying
Oh- she is 5'9", medium brown hair, brown eyes, of course her mommy thinks she is beautiful-- but she gets looks, actually she snaps heads around.
Actually she is a good "kiddo"- no trouble out of her- has pretty good sense. 

[Alpaca]

This brings to mind the last person who had a relationship arranged for him by someone's mother through the interwebs...

[anthrobabe]

This brings to mind the last person who had a relationship arranged for him by someone's mother through the interwebs...

all in good fun-

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Oooh dear.

I agree with Alpaca completely.
Personally, I hate math. I hate the way it's taught.  They teach it in as a convoluted way as possible. Honestly, I need to have it explained in practical terms, and then you can throw the theory at me later when I can do it backwards and forewards.
I would agree that it needs to be split. I'm not probably going to use science level math very often as a lawyer or an intelligence analyst. I should now it, and understand it, but I don't need it.
I also agree that science needs to be more of a requirement. We had to have biology and a lab science to escape. I ended up with seven years' worth of science (bio, zoology, chem, AP environ, bioengineering, honors chem and botany) but most don't take any science their junior and senior years 'round here.
I also think the way English is taught is wrong. I really have no grasp of anything more complex than conjunctions and verbs. Don't ask me to diagram sentences, because I can't. They teach it too early and wrongly. They also teach us to write incorrectly. They have this silly thing about diagrams and outlines and rewriting the same paper eighty zillion times. Very illogical. And when you hit college, they may have to reteach you to write.