I considered working with the French system, which allows students to major in Literature, Language and History; Technology or "Social Sciences" (actually a mixture of the other two.) However, I decided this was awkward, and thus decided to askew curricula entirely. Classes can be chosen by students.
I have heard the protests a thousand times, secondary school students are too immature to make important decisions. If we keep saying that, they will be too immature because they have never been asked to be mature. I am hoping my view will find some followers on Hatrack, which has a slightly higher view of adolescents, myself excluded, than society in general. Let them take ancient history, or Existential philosophy or non-Euclidean Geometry.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My school (that I work at, not that I attended) tried that. It was a cataclysmic failure.
I think it would have worked for me as a student, and probably for you as well. But not for the majority.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
What Icarus said. Additionally, you're ignoring the conceptual bases of most subjects. As you said:
quote:Let them take ancient history, or Existential philosophy or non-Euclidean Geometry.
How are they going to learn Existential philosophy without learning something about the nature of philosophy first? You can't intelligently critique Aristotle, Plato or Aquinas without first understanding them.
With non-Euclidean Geometry as well--you can't understand the subject without first understanding the nature of Euclidean Geometery. You need to know how to construct a mathematical proof, how to draw conclusions deductively from given facts, etc. You can't get much further than trivia without going further into the realm of analytical geometry and abstract algebra, which requires you to learn Calculus first. There's a reason these are college subjects. Math is a cumulative field where you can't possibly make any progress without knowing the prerequisites. You might as well suggest that kids learn how to do differential equations without first understanding the nature of functions.
Finally, while adolescents are perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions, they often haven't had the experience to get to know their interests. Heck, most college students don't know where their interests lie. Had I gone to a school with your suggested curriculum, I never would have gotten into History, writing, debate, etc. I never would have realized that I was more interested in the law than in science, because I never would have been exposed to the law.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"they often haven't had the experience to get to know their interests." A common argument, and not one I have much patience with. I think that my view of it as paternalistic is thoroughly justified and would be echoed by many of my peers, although I was surprised to learn how many of them do not mind being systematically patronized. My generation is not the group of mindless, dopped-out idiots that we are so frequently characterized as, and I resent the view that we lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle our own education and must instead entrust this task to our wise and benevolent elders.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Read Summerhill by Neill.
AJ
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "they often haven't had the experience to get to know their interests." A common argument, and not one I have much patience with. I think that my view of it as paternalistic is thoroughly justified and would be echoed by many of my peers, although I was surprised to learn how many of them do not mind being systematically patronized. My generation is not the group of mindless, dopped-out idiots that we are so frequently characterized as, and I resent the view that we lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle our own education and must instead entrust this task to our wise and benevolent elders.
Oh, Pel.
You'll see.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:A common argument, and not one I have much patience with. I think that my view of it as paternalistic is thoroughly justified and would be echoed by many of my peers, although I was surprised to learn how many of them do not mind being systematically patronized. My generation is not the group of mindless, dopped-out idiots that we are so frequently characterized as, and I resent the view that we lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle our own education and must instead entrust this task to our wise and benevolent elders.
Come back in 5 years and tell me that
It's not your generation specifically, it's adolescents in general, even bright ones. I was on the U.S. Physics team in high school, and one would have expected the 5 of us to all continue into pure physics. None of us ended up majoring in physics. One went into math, another computer science, I was a mechanical engineer who went on to law school. What you think you want today can easily change as you mature, and part of the older generation's responsibility is, yes, paternalistically protecting you from your own lack of experience by providing a broad enough education so that you can change fields later if you want.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
I think the difference between the way high school students are treated and college students are treated is that, for the first two years of high school, most people are required by law to attend, and even after, most people are required by their parents/guardians to go to school. So you get a lot more of the people who are just there counting the minutes and whatnot. I agree no prescribed curriculum in the sense that we have now, but each path still needs to be taken in order (this is true of college classes as well; see "prerequisite" in your student handbook) and at least a "default" curriculum--for the screwballs, or for those who just want to be exposed to more things--is a good idea, if handled properly.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Eschew.
And you can't teach "ancient history" on a university level in high school because, well, it's high school. The kids don't have the background.
And existential philosophy makes no sense without the centuries of philosophy built up behind it. You need a background in Platonism, Aristotelianism, and all the other significant schools, the conflicts that arose between them, through the Enlightenment, and further, before you could properly critique something so modern. Just like you can't teach medieval theology without understanding the issues in translating and transmitting Aritotle to the scholars of the west, and how it got there, and why, and the massive effect it had in an amazingly short time. Anything less gives an incomplete picture and poor understanding. And it's not an easy topic, almost impossible to teach one's self (believe me, I tried it, and it was miserable).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
80% of students who start college switch their major at least once. Did you know that?
So, saying that the average student knows definitively what they want to do is incorrect. They may have an idea of what they want to do, but 80% of them change their mind *at least once* during four years of college.
These are adults we're talking about, too. Better yet, adults who did well enough academically to be accepted to college. 80% of these don't know exactly what they want when they are 18.
Rewind another four years. If 80% have changed their mind between the ages of 18 and 22, you can be sure the number is higher for students who change their mind between 14-22 - and likely just between the ages of 14-20.
The statement was: "Finally, while adolescents are perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions, they often haven't had the experience to get to know their interests."
It was not that your generation is a "group of mindless, doped-out idiots" that "lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle [your]own education and must instead entrust this task to [your] wise and benevolent elders."
One does not imply the other.
The first statement is based on the fact that most people do not know the paths of their lives at 18, therefore most people do not know at 14. It is saying that time and life experience alter people's perceptions more often than not.
The second statement is a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived slight.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:My generation is not the group of mindless, dopped-out idiots that we are so frequently characterized as, and I resent the view that we lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle our own education and must instead entrust this task to our wise and benevolent elders.
Nobody has stated or implied any such calumny about your generation. What many of us have pointed out is that kids don't know best, because they lack experience, education, and foresight. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it happens to be true. (You provide admirable proof of the truth of this statement with your rejection of the wisdom of people who clearly have more experience and education than you do.)
I've known a whole lot more members of your generation than you have.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: 80% of students who start college switch their major at least once. Did you know that?
I was one of them.
In fact, I changed my declared major on my very first day of college. Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:In fact, I changed my declared major on my very first day of college.
I didn't until I started sophomore year And then I completely changed fields after graduation. But something a career counselor told me made me feel a lot better: The average American will change jobs 12 times, and careers 3 times over the course of a lifetime.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
That is also not including students who enter college with no major or "undecided" - I can't find stats on what portion of incoming freshmen that is, but I know from my own experience (in an Honors dorm no less) that it's a lot of people.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper:
quote:In fact, I changed my declared major on my very first day of college.
I didn't until I started sophomore year And then I completely changed fields after graduation. But something a career counselor told me made me feel a lot better: The average American will change jobs 12 times, and careers 3 times over the course of a lifetime.
I'm 22 and done it...*counts* seven times (changed jobs, not careers). Uh oh.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The average American will change jobs 12 times, and careers 3 times over the course of a lifetime.
Not Pelegius, though, I'm assuming. He is wise beyond his years and knows how the entire course of his life will unfold at the age of 17 - surely, he will not deviate from the path based on life experience, as age and experience have no bearing on decisions made for his future.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Most colleges have pretty strict requirements (or "guidelines") in what they want of their incoming students. The UCs have a very strict list, for example. I know in high school I felt pressure to take four years of math, science, English, foriegn language, history, and an art/music course in order to prepare for college. If I hadn't taken such a program, I wouldn't have been competative at the more select universities.
I went into high school knowing I was going to college, and thus I signed up for all the hard courses. Students who were less certain - or had no plans to attend college - still had to take the core classes of science, math, English, and history. Some of them later decided that they wanted to go to college, and, because of the requirements my high school had for its students, they were prepared (or could become so after their decision).
A good thing about required core classes is that it keeps doors opens to students who might accidently close them.
Also, it's GOOD for students to take courses that they don't particularly enjoy. I'm thinking of the math nerd who hates English, or the drama student who can't stand math and science. That math nerd will still need to communicate in writing in the future. That drama student will have to do taxes, and will need an understanding of science to follow many current debates and topics (see the mistrust of science thread). The core courses are core because they're needed to be a functioning member of our civilization.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: What many of us have pointed out is that kids don't know best, because they lack experience, education, and foresight. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it happens to be true.
Not for every kid.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
True, but for most.
Edit to add: Also, since this thread is about a sweeping proposal for a secondary school that affects every kid, the exceptions to the rule are not germane to the discussion.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Jeesh -
Yes, for every kid. The only way to be the same person at 24 that you were at 14 is to live in isolation for 10 years. And even if some kids actually will stick to the path they think they're on, there's no way of knowing which kids they are.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
And you can't make policies of any kind based on the 'exceptions to the rule.' You make policies for the majority, and try to figure out ways to allow the minority ways to adapt the policies to their needs. At my university you can petition pretty much ANY rule - and if you make a good case for why your situation is different, you'll be excused from following it.
edit - these rules include academic policies (final exam times, major requirements, group requirements, credit limits, etc), housing policies (move-in times, what you can have in your room, roommate policies, living off-campus rules, etc), extracurricular activities, honors programs, financial aid policies and rules, summer programs... pretty much anything can be challenged. But the rules in general are a good thing for the majority of the students.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: What many of us have pointed out is that kids don't know best, because they lack experience, education, and foresight. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it happens to be true.
Not for every kid.
I'm sorry, Jeesh, that you are seeing offense where none is intended or given. But yes. For. every. kid.
How many years have you taught?
How many children do you have? For how long have you been a parent?
What was your college degree in?
How far did you get in graduate school?
Try to understand: I'm not claiming to be more intelligent than you are. I'm not saying you won't be a wiser adult. But for you to claim that you have a more well-rounded perspective than I do on this topic is absurd, and evinces just how shallow your perspective is.
Again, I'm sorry if that offends you. Offending you is not my wish.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Icarus: What many of us have pointed out is that kids don't know best, because they lack experience, education, and foresight. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it happens to be true. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for every kid.
In Jeesh's defense, more often than we like to admit, a kid, starting at a young age, will know better than their parents, and in the absence of any other supposed authority, you can say that the kid does know best.
So if we take the situation in context, for a particular child, in a particular family, it can be the case that the child knows best. Thankfully, these family situations are in the minority, but since we are talking about a vast pool, raw numbers of children in this situation can't be ignored.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
In defense of Jeesh, I think he is saying that some kids have a pretty good idea of things with relation to many adults, especially with regard to education and foresight.
I'm sure, Ic, you have met a few students who were very capable young people who would fare very well in the real world at the age of 14 - quite possibly better than many adults.
Will experience enhance and deepen their understanding and capability? Sure it will, but there is that rare, rare, tiny portion that are older than their age would seem to dictate.
In four years of teaching, I've met two and only taught one of them.
This is not to say these two won't change the course of their lives several times, either. Change is natural. Some people just reach maturity earlier than others.
But again, it is the exception.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am in favor of a basic system of prerequisites. Those who do not yet know what they wish to do with their lives can take a variety of classes.
It may come as a surprise to some, but, in many countries, university student cannot change their major. Thus, they are expected to enter a university with a clear idea of what they intended to do. If a British student can do this, so can an American student. Indeed, in countries following a European model, such choices are made closer to fifteen than eighteen. I am sorry if this fact does not fit into you preconceived notions of reality. We constantly underestimate ourselves and others because of it, the point I tried to make in my "Education in a Culture of Mediocrity" thread.
But then I lack experience, education, and foresight and thus cannot be taken seriously. This may be true, but am I to believe that it is only true of youth? Take education in the U.K., are the past several generations Parliamentary majorities and educational experts all adolescents with limited experience, education, and foresight? Of course not, adolescents do not have limited experience, education, and foresight, they simply lack these qualities all together.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm not saying that kids never know better in any context. But in the context of this discussion, where expertise and experience form such a substantial basis, its absurd to discount what those of us who have lived and worked in the trenches know. Jeesh's blind, ignorant assertion that we don't know what kids can learn because we've never tried to teach them is actually more than a little insulting, but I let it slide because I knew she didn't know what she was talking about.
(And let's not fall prey to the trap of romanticizing childhood and youthful intelligence.)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jeesh said four words for this entire thread, and they are correct.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Irami & FlyingCow -
Of course there are some kids who would fare well in the adult world at 14. I was one.
But, we're getting a little off track. Yes, kids know what they're interested in now better than their parents. However, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't still have to take a broad liberal arts curriculum so that if (and most likely when) they change their mind, they're able to. If there's one segment of society that should be treated paternalistically, it's children Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: But then I lack experience, education, and foresight and thus cannot be taken seriously.
Typical. Do you not see that you have been taken seriously?
Would you recognize being taken seriously if it happened? People taking the time to explain why they disagree with your ideas, or which parts of your ideas they disagree with . . . that's the essence of it. You seem to think "Gosh Pel, you're right! What a genius! Where can I sign up for your newsletter?!" is being taken seriously.
Does it hurt, being a martyr all the time?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Actualy, you are being more than a little insulting, to Jeesh, to me and to young people throughout the world. I am sure you mean well, but you are being extreamly offensive to a very large group.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Ironically, when I proposed a broad liberal arts curriculum in Middle School, it was heavily criticized, not least by you, Edgehopper, for being too broad and too focused on the liberal arts.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Icarus, being accused of lacking experience, education, and foresight because of my age is not being taken seriously. Being seriously means your ideas are judged independently of your age, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical handicap or anything of that sort (I saw that bit in the Oxford University nondiscrimination policy and thought it was wonderful.)
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
The objection, if I recall correctly, was not that your curriculum was too broad -- it was that it focused on liberal arts at the expense of other subjects.
--j_k
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Edge,
I agree about a liberal arts curriculum. I agree that teachers and parents should be afforded a degree of blind authority in the eyes of children. I just don't think that we can wave away the scads of inadequate teachers and parents and the plight of their children, especially considering parents and teachers disagree within each other. Managing this authority is a real thorny problem that doesn't go away.
Pel,
You have a smarmy tone that doesn't help your case. It's not because you are young or bright. If you want to know, Kasie H was younger than you are and smarter than you are and her incisive points were treated with the utmost respect because she was pleasant whereas you come across unctuous and self-pitying.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:It may come as a surprise to some, but, in many countries, university student cannot change their major. Thus, they are expected to enter a university with a clear idea of what they intended to do. If a British student can do this, so can an American student. Indeed, in countries following a European model, such choices are made closer to fifteen than eighteen. I am sorry if this fact does not fit into you preconceived notions of reality. We constantly underestimate ourselves and others because of it, the point I tried to make in my "Education in a Culture of Mediocrity" thread.
These are also societies that place a much lower value on social freedom. I assume we're talking about American schools here, and American culture places a much higher value on personal happiness than most others. It's right in the Declaration of Independence
But seriously, what makes these other university systems more admirable than ours? The top research universities in the world are still primarily American, and while the American secondary school system is below average, the American university system is considered the top in the world generally (yes, specific foreign universities have some specific better programs, but generally, America is the place to go for college.)
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" it was that it focused on liberal arts at the expense of other subjects." Such is the nature of a *liberal arts* curriculum.
". I agree that teachers and parents should be afforded a degree of blind authority in the eyes of children." I find the idea of any amount of blind authority given to anyone repulsive.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Ironically, when I proposed a broad liberal arts curriculum in Middle School, it was heavily criticized, not least by you, Edgehopper, for being too broad and too focused on the liberal arts.
That wasn't a liberal arts curriculum, that was a mishmash of pet fields. A liberal arts curriculum at the very least has to include a substantial writing component. If you go back to my post, you'll see that my main thematic criticisms were:
1: Too little writing 2: Too much "putting the cart before the horse"--giving kids subjects without the necessary prerequisites 3: Not broad enough (not enough breadth of literature, no music or P.E.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No, you are being extremely thin-skinned.
In years at Hatrack, I have never said anything to Hobbes or :Locke or JuniperDreams to the effect that they don't know what they are talking about because they are (were) young. Let me explain why I feel it is necessary to say it to you.
I don't have a problem stating a thesis from a position of partial ignorance. That's a perfectly reasonable starting point for a discussion. And when you started these five discussions, I engaged you, and took you seriously, in each of them. I did not criticize your writing style. I explained why I disagreed, and waited for your rebuttals.
When I argue from a position of partial ignorance, and listen closely to the opinions of experts. I don't necessarily change my beliefs, but I try to either find ways that their observations can fit my worldview, or perhaps temper my worldview so that it does not contradict the facts.
In the course of these threads, you have stated that the perspective of adults is flawed because we don't know what it is like to be students and kids. That's absurd on the face of it--of course we do. You have not even addressed our experience--well, except when you tried to lecture me on what my daughters are and are not capable of.
I have borne your insults with a fair amount of good grace, actually.
You think I am insulting you because I point out what you do not know. I thought you were opposed to the School of Self-Esteem, that told people they were accomplished whether they were or not, but apparently you are only opposed to other people being treated this way. For yourself, you desire the coddling.
I'll try . . . I just don't know if I have it in me . . .
Goooood Pelegius! You're so smart! You're so brilliant! Yes, everything should be just as you say!
Hmm . . . how's that?
You've been told over and over that you're a smart guy, but all you perceive are the insults. You've been told over and over how to be taken seriously, but all you see is attacks.
Half of your posts don't defend your curriculum, but instead dismiss other people's criticisms.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Icarus, I wasn't taking offense. I am a kid, and I know I might not have as much experience or education as my parents, but they won't always know what's best for me. Yes, this might be true for lots of other kids, but you can't say we don't ever know what's best.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:It may come as a surprise to some, but, in many countries, university student cannot change their major.
I studied in Ireland, Pel. Over there, your major is chosen for you based on your performance in secondary school. Students that excelled in mathematics were accepted to mathematics programs at university, and could attend for free. Students that excelled at language were accepted to language courses at university, and could attend for free. Students who excelled at everything were accepted to Trinity, and could attend for free.
There was no choice in the matter - you were either accepted to a program at a university based on your high school performance, or you didn't go to university at all.
You had no choice in the matter at all. In my experience at the University of Galway, this did not improve the quality of student at all.
But, of course you knew this.
And of course the idea that people change careers is still left unaddressed.
And of course most of the points made by professionals in the field of education in both of your curriculum threads have gone unaddressed, too.
That is, of course, because you only reply to comments you perceive as attacks. Does it surprise you, then, when people attack you? It's the only time they get a response.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Icarus, being accused of lacking experience, education, and foresight because of my age is not being taken seriously. Being seriously means your ideas are judged independently of your age, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical handicap or anything of that sort (I saw that bit in the Oxford University nondiscrimination policy and thought it was wonderful.)
Not at all. You were taken seriously: I addressed your ideas. I also explained what my expertise is, because it's a valid consideration.
Being accused of lacking experience and education is not any kind of attack, it is an accurate representation of the facts. You wish to be told you have experience and education? ::scratched head:: What kind of world do you live in, where what actually is doesn't matter as much as what you want? Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:I just don't think that we can wave away the scads of inadequate teachers and parents and the plight of their children, especially considering parents and teachers disagree within each other. Managing this authority is a real thorny problem that doesn't go away.
Agreed, completely. But I thought this was a discussion in an "ideal world" where we assumed that kids had access to qualified teachers. The problem you mention is an even bigger one than curriculum, and requires a much trickier solution.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Such is the nature of a *liberal arts* curriculum.
Perhaps I should have stated "it focused on *specific* liberal arts at the expense of other subjects."
I understood Edgehopper's post to mean that students should be educated in the liberal arts in middle school, but other subjects should still be required.
Students need liberal arts, but your examples (Art History, Latin, Human Geography, etc) are very specific parts of a liberal arts education.
--j_k
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Icarus, being accused of lacking experience, education, and foresight because of my age is not being taken seriously. Being seriously means your ideas are judged independently of your age, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical handicap or anything of that sort (I saw that bit in the Oxford University nondiscrimination policy and thought it was wonderful.)
People see great logical gaps in your ideas, Pel, many of which seem to lack certain understandings about the nature of the average student, the average adult, and the requisite skills needed for life.
The appeal to your age is an effort at giving you the benefit of the doubt, that it is only through lack of years (not intelligence) that you are not making sense. If you were 35 and making these statements, we would assume you were totally disconnected from reality and lived in a bubble.
Your statements are idealistic in the extreme and do not take into account the realities of life. They are based on things you have read about life in other countries, often romanticized, and not on actual experience. We hope this is due to your age, and that as you progress through life you will start to understand the complicating factors that make your ideas so implausible.
We are optimistic, otherwise we'd just call you a crackpot and have done with it. (Believe me, I'm close.) You are not a crackpot, you are just ignorant to many realities that experience will bring to light.
There are many people here worth learning from. They have experience in their fields, and have brought a lot of that experience to discussion with you. They take your ideas seriously enough to try to help you refine them - by providing you with their experience to supplement your own.
You deny all attempts at this.
Yet, you constantly appeal to the works of older people you have read, to the work of people far more experienced in the ways of life than yourself. You value the opinions of older people you read in books, but not the opinions of older people that speak directly to you.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: Icarus, I wasn't taking offense. I am a kid, and I know I might not have as much experience or education as my parents, but they won't always know what's best for me. Yes, this might be true for lots of other kids, but you can't say we don't ever know what's best.
To be clear, I didn't say that kids don't ever know best.
I'm glad you didn't take offense, because I really don't want to offend you.
There were plenty of times--as I've noted yesterday on one of Pelegius's threads, even!--when the academic advice of my parents turned out to be mistaken. And, no doubt, lots of places where my perceptions are off as well (though I obviously won't see them unless someone beats me over the head with them!) However, for me to have decided, as a teenager, that my perspective was equal to that of my father--who spent thirty years as a high school and college teacher--would have been foolhardy. His advice, imperfect though it may have been--was based on a more complete view of the total picture than I had as a teenager. But sure, there were times when I was right and he was wrong. I never said it doesn't happen.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Being seriously means your ideas are judged independently of your age, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical handicap or anything of that sort (I saw that bit in the Oxford University nondiscrimination policy and thought it was wonderful.)
Yes, except...when experience is valid evidence. To take it to an extreme, would you consider age irrelevant when discussing euthanasia, just because you as a 17 year old wouldn't want to live life severely disabled? I'd think the experience of those who have lived with a serious handicap is worthy of consideration.
Your ideas aren't wrong because they're proposed by a 17 year old, and in fact some of it is right (for the most part, I like your proposed science curriculum.) But the experiences of a 23 year old (me) and older folks (Icarus, I think) are certainly relevant to the discussion, as are the experiences of people in fields outside of ancient Greco-Roman history.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I just don't think that we can wave away the scads of inadequate teachers and parents and the plight of their children, especially considering parents and teachers disagree within each other. Managing this authority is a real thorny problem that doesn't go away.
I agree.
-o-
I teach in a community where a lot of British immigrants live. Why would someone move from England or Scotland to the US? Believe it or not, for the education. I know, it runs contrary to everything that people read about how much the US educational system sucks, but what we do here, or what we attempt to do here, is provide the opportunity for higher education to as many as possible. That's why we have lower scores in many measures--we don't only have our elites in the mix. I won't deny that there are pitfalls in this approach--the culture of mediocrity Pel alludes to in his other thread can be blamed on this approach. The suffering that many smart people on this forum have endured at the hands of jealous peers who resented their success can also be blamed on this. But don't hold up the British system to me as some shining beacon of what education should be like, because I have taught too many kids who came to the US because they were being taught nothing over there, because it had been decided in elementary school that they were not worthy of higher education.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Yet, you constantly appeal to the works of older people you have read, to the work of people far more experienced in the ways of life than yourself. You value the opinions of older people you read in books, but not the opinions of older people that speak directly to you.
You don't have the qualifications, FC. You need to state them explicitly in order to carry any weight. Proof of IQ, degrees with applicable GPAs, awards, pay stubs, and/or proof of authorship in a scholarly publication will be required before Pel (or I, or anyone) will take you seriously.
Ready, go.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I think this forum should require new applicants to attach a scanned copy of their MENSA cards to their profile.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Icarus- I can agree with that.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:You don't have the qualifications, FC. You need to state them explicitly in order to carry any weight. Proof of IQ, degrees with applicable GPAs, awards, pay stubs, and/or proof of authorship in a scholarly publication will be required before Pel (or I, or anyone) will take you seriously.
Ready, go.
Sure. You first. Then Pel.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I think this forum should require new applicants to attach a scanned copy of their MENSA cards to their profile.
How smart am I? I have a card but can never remember where I put it...
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
Uh, lessee...
IQ, most recent test was 170, although lifetime average (4 tests) is 155. I have no degrees. High school cumulative GPA 3.314. Graduated without honors. I make about 35k a year from my part-time day job, run a business in the other hours that looks like it's going to do between 40-50k gross / 35-42 net this year.
Do you respect me yet?
...no?!
<ignores your posts>
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know, I think I almost respect someone without a college degree who is nevertheless "self-made" and successful more than someone with only a bachelor's degree, making the same income doing a degree-requiring job.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I hate you guys. I took an IQ test and was scored retarded in certain areas and genius in others, eventually getting as a result "can't calculate accurately." It seems I have a thinking disorder -- ADHD.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I find it amusing that two actual teachers are posting on this thread. Even though my upbringing was decidedly on the side of academic freedom.
I support minimum curriculum requirements in *both* science and liberal arts. Exposure to new ideas in all disciplines lead to more rounded human beings.
AJ (who is lacking a high school diploma)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Well, I'm not a teacher anymore. You can call me a former teacher, an ex-teacher, an escaped teacher, a recovering teacher... take your pick. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I was in MENSA until I stopped paying. Then I apparently turned stupid. But I still have the card and the license plate frame!
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I don't have anything to add, but I wanted to compliment Icky and FlyingCow on their responses in this thread.
I don't think I would be so patient.
Ni!
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
As an anecdote, my junior high and high school both allow students to choose their own curricula, and they were both quite excellent.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Could you elaborate? Specifically, how do students choose their own curricula, and how do you know the schools were excellent? Can you also talk about what kind of schools they were, and what kind of students they served?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't see anything wrong with allowing students to choose some of their classes in high school, but there should be standard requirements in the major subjects.
For example, my daughter's high school is on a semester system, and elective classes are usually just one semester long so you can take several electives a year. She's excited because her favorite teacher teaches a one semester history elective on the Holocaust and she's heard it's excellent, she hopes to be able to take it. I learned nothing about the Holocaust in high school beyond a mention of it while my history class was studying WWII, I think it's great kids can have the opportunity to explore things in greater depth while still in high school, it no doubt will help them narrow down what to pursue while in college.
That said, I've changed my major officially three times and unofficially about twenty. Strangely enough, I wound up back majoring in English which was my initial plan when I graduated high school almost twenty years ago. So sometimes we come full circle in life.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
“Over there, your major is chosen for you based on your performance in secondary school.” I am very surprised to here this, and am having some trouble believing. In the U.K., a student receives career advice and may be encouraged to major in one field or another, but is free to apply to choose any major he or she is qualified for (e.g., I would be qualified for Ancient History, Philosophy and perhaps Theology, English or Classics and maybe even Law, but not at all for Maths, Physics of Medicine.)
I would like to add that, while I generally have a very high level of respect for Icarus, he is being bullying and condescending in the extreme in his attempt to shout down all opposition based on his claims of extreme enlightenment and experience.
“You have a smarmy tone that doesn't help your case. It's not because you are young or bright. If you want to know, Kasie H was younger than you are and smarter than you are and her incisive points were treated with the utmost respect because she was pleasant whereas you come across unctuous and self-pitying.” On the account of unctuousness, I can plead total innocence, as I am being completely sincere. I do not deny being self-pitying, because this is the case, although I should point out that my pity extends far beyond myself. Your assault on my intelligence far transcends any grounds of decency or decorum, and I admit to being ill-prepared, and not a little disinclined, to defend myself. Make of me what you will, and I shall extend the favor.
"You value the opinions of older people you read in books, but not the opinions of older people that speak directly to you." A falsehood. I value neither all the time, but nor do I discount either.
"Your statements are idealistic in the extreme and do not take into account the realities of life." Life can, and must be, shaped to our will. Brecht famously stated that art was a hammer with which to sculpt reality. If we are not life's masters, then we are surely its slaves, and if we are its slaves, for what to do we live?
[ July 27, 2006, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Pelegius ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"That's why we have lower scores in many measures--we don't only have our elites in the mix." We don't have élites, we breed against them.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm not being the least bit bullying. Frankly, few people have invested as much time in taking you seriously these last two days as I have. (And, as I'm discovering, they were the smart ones, because it was wasted time.)
I explained why I disagree with you with references to my reasons for feeling as I do. You then gave me parenting advice (!) and dismissed my expertise. It was at that point I pointed out that you were being a jackass.
My biggest sorrow/concern today was that Jeesh was getting caught in the crossfire, and believing that I had any intent to belittle her, but I felt it was necessary to point out to you that only a fool disregards those who are experts in the topic he is talking about. Experts can be wrong. But to dismiss their expertise altogether is asinine. For that you call me a bully.
I frankly doubt many posters here would look at my behavior as bullying.
[ July 27, 2006, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Your assault on my intelligence far transcends any grounds of decency or decorum...
You know, many people would be honored to be less intelligent than Kasie.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"You then gave mne parenting advice" I don't recall ever having any discussions on parenting with anyone in the past week or two.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Pel, do you know how to use the quote function? That would make your posts much more readable by setting the sentences you are responding to apart from your responses.
Ni!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Sorry - I just now caught this:
quote: AJ (who is lacking a high school diploma)
You are hilarious, AJ! Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
/trying to ignore the inevitable frustration of any discussion involving pelegius
A good example of why a broad and unspecialized highschool education is vital:
Much of the generic highschool education now concentrates on essentially being able to competently read, write and grants a basic understanding of most sciences and areas of study (history, mathematics, foreign language etc) and without that kind of background I don't believe one can really function as a part of greater society.
Case in point: many engineers get into the major based on the following understanding "I am good at math and science and hate english" and as a result they don't take english classes and are completely terrible communicators. Basically what this group at least needs is actually less choice in what classes to take.
Other examples include individuals who are so lacking in geographical skills as to consider Chicago an east-coast city, and many other similar examples.
I would certainly agree that some choice in highschool is very desirable. I relished being able to take various electives such as Astronomy and Meteorology, Literature in Film and various others. I would also say that many highschools lack adequate options in scientific and/or mathematical fields (though there are some now that allow students to take some community college classes that may not be offered by the highschool itself).
I would also agree that courses in philosophy would be very valuable earlier on that they are offered in most areas. I feel very lucky that I had to take 4 years of Theology as part of the core curriculum at my highschool and feel that this aided all of us immensely both in critical thinking to be applied to all our other studies as well as a better general outlook on the world around us.
I do agree with pretty much everyone else though in saying that your proposition (in my opinion) gives far far too much freedom to a group of individuals who on average still don't know what is important to know in life, or what they are truly interested in. Even if you're not interested in history it is invaluable to learn about it, and the same goes for at least basics in most any other subject. And there are certain things such as reading comprehension and writing skills that will be critical no matter what field you go into.
As for being offended when older individuals "accuse" you of lacking experience... the absolute only way to gain life experience is to live life. by definition, since you are significantly younger than many/most here discussing things with you, you have significantly less life experience. This is a fact and is irrefutable. The experience that we think you need to gain more of is in the areas of seeing others live their lives, learning what average people think of things, learning where life takes you and others based on decisions made etc. you may have different experiences than some of your peers in that you've mentioned (I believe) trips to europe etc, but this is just different experience and not more.
I've experienced 24 years of life including an engineering degree, 3-6 years of industry experience (depending on hours worked/chronological measurement), have gone to a catholic military highschool, been an officer in JROTC, been a peer leader in many youth and campus ministry organizations etc etc... but this doesn't mean that I have any more experience than my former classmates who never went to college, work at a garage and have 2 kids by now, we just have different experience. it does, however, mean that we have more experience than you... and when someone who has been a professional educator for many years comes in and says that you need more experience so you can fully appreciate some of the criticisms being directed towards you it is absurd of you to claim that they are wrong.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:In fact, I changed my declared major on my very first day of college.
I originally applied for Music. I then changed my mind and applied for International Relations, and was accepted. Then I changed my mind again and declared my major as English. Now, I am changing my major to History.
I still have two years to change my mind again!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
After that first day, I never changed my mind again.
Instead I just added majors and minors. I finished with two majors and two minors.
Of course, then I went graduate school for one field, and spent the next twelve years teaching in the other. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: That is also not including students who enter college with no major or "undecided" - I can't find stats on what portion of incoming freshmen that is, but I know from my own experience (in an Honors dorm no less) that it's a lot of people.
Of course, that's on average. In many schools the percentage exceeds 50%.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: Life can, and must be, shaped to our will. Brecht famously stated that art was a hammer with which to sculpt reality. If we are not life's masters, then we are surely its slaves, and if we are its slaves, for what to do we live?
An infant will put his hand on a hot stove, not knowing what the outcome will be. Life will teach that child the cause and effect of such an action. Before that life experience, the child was ignorant of one facet of life. After that life experience, the child was made aware.
You say life can be shaped to your will. I want you to shape the hot stove to your will so that it doesn't burn you. Ignore certain aspects of reality long enough, and they will burn you - hopefully mildly enough that you can learn from the experience.
Up until now, you seem intent not to learn from anything.
And that is your choice. I'm confident that will change in time.
My choice is to stop this discussion, at least on my end. All attempts at reasoned responses regarding the topic have been ignored, so it behooves me to stop making such attempts.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
You know Pelegius- I am rather young myself- I turned 18 years old less than a month ago. I read Hatrack all the time- if I'm not doing anything and am just wasting my time- I'm probably reading Hatrack. I read probably somewhere between 1/2-4/5 of all the threads (depending on how busy my week is) but I rarely post, and when I do it's usually about minor things- not the big debates (which I love).
But I have always stood in fascinated awe about the collective intellect of the Hatrack community, and I watched as you posted and they critiqued your writing style (which was a bit cumbersome)- but more than that it made me laugh because I speak very much like that sometimes- although not that convoluted, but close. I've seen as you've constantly talking about how adults who view youth as not knowing everything, not being omniscient about the future, are being disrespectful towards youth.
That's a complete falsehood. I'm a fairly smart guy- and in my little town of suburbia I am one of the smartest people I know. I went 2 years to a program at Duke University for excelling on the ACT in the 7th grade, I've won writing contests, I had a letter to the editor published in the New York Times- I got a 31 on my ACT, I have an IQ of 148. But do you know what the means to me- that list right there? Nothing at all. Duke TiP was awesome but that was because of the friends I've made. I know a lot. But I know that despite the great volumes of useless of crap that floats around in my brain- I know that there are a lot of things more that I still need to learn. The things that I really know were things taught outside of the classroom. And to be fair- they weren't taught.
I've learned much about what it means to be a man (though again- still much more to learn), how live a sacrifical life for others, how to think rationally about my emotions, how to have fun (that was a tough one for me), how to make friends, I have a fairly good idea what it means to love (not romantically- just generically), what it means to be really passionate about something. People that don't know me on anything but a superficial level on see Tyler as the "smart kid" I cannot begin to tell you how upset that makes me- because I am more than that.
The entire point of the little bio is so you can understand where I'm coming from. I had a sucky time in middle school, people older than me (and by older I mean- they were juniors in high school) said that when I got to high school it would get better. It did. I didn't believe them at the time because I was just so sure that I knew my life better than they did. Which is true- I did and I do. However with a person's growth in years spent in thought (some anyways), one begins to see the trends that appear in a great majority of peoples lives. History is really built on a system of trends- of which I'm sure you know of better than me. All human lives have some basic situations that occur- they are born, most reproduce, and they all die. Now within a culture, say just American (if that can be made into a homogenous group) the similarities between individual lives are bound to increase exponentially. Therefore to reject the advice of older ones simply because they are older and have seen more of the world in the context of how individuals progress through time is quite frankly, ridiculously absurd.
I find it more insulting to youth in general to see individuals like yourselves- who are smart, you are very smart Pelegius, who just think that the world is out to get them because they are young. This is simply not true and is not a good use of critical thinking skills. So please, just calm down and stop thinking the world is out to get you- because in all honesty Pelegius, they aren't- the world is too busy to worry about you. There are people that care- your parents, other family, friends- even the ones here on Hatrack that try to help- but you constantly accuse them of nasty things- they want to see you grow into not a smart person- but a wise person.
One of the hardest things I've ever had to learn is how to admit my mistakes- I think perhaps now is a prime time for you to do so too.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I hope I didn't kill this thread....
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Doubtful. THe board just slowed down for the night. It's a good post.
Ni!
Posted by Leroy (Member # 9533) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: It may come as a surprise to some, but, in many countries, university student cannot change their major. Thus, they are expected to enter a university with a clear idea of what they intended to do. If a British student can do this, so can an American student. Indeed, in countries following a European model, such choices are made closer to fifteen than eighteen. I am sorry if this fact does not fit into you preconceived notions of reality. We constantly underestimate ourselves and others because of it, the point I tried to make in my "Education in a Culture of Mediocrity" thread.
Actually, a lot of the countries where you HAVE to pick a field before entering school do this for a very good reason: the government supports higher education A LOT. If the government is going to pay for your education, then they have a right to see that you don't spend your time screwing around. As for students choosing a career at 14, I assume you are talking about the Gymnasium type of school system (Of course, we all know what assuming does...) And at fourteen they don't have to say, "I want to be a bio-engineer" They have to say, "I want to take a course that will allow me to go on the to next level of education, rather than just enough to be a functioning member of society." The choice of an actual career is often delayed, along with the entrance of the university--often years after they would have begun school in the USA, so that they have time to be sure they want to pursue this course.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Well, I just want to pipe in quickly to say that Icarus was definitely not bullying Pel in any way. Also, to say that Pel is a prime example that intelligence does not equal maturity.
Oh, and Shawshank, excellent post. Maybe Pel will listen to you because you're not a closed-minded old fogey like the rest of us (although I doubt it).
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm 21. There's a good chance that I'll be graduating with the major I started with. That said...
I don't find Icarus's assertions about young people insulting. Obviously, it would be silly to dismiss me completely because I'm young, but it's certainly not out of line for him to say that I have less life experience than he does. I've never held a job for more than a summer, never married or had children, never owned or rented my own place. Heck, I haven't even done my own taxes yet. I can see how far I've come in the past few years, and I have reason to believe that I was already pretty mature for my age when I was young. I'm always happy to listen to the advice of more experienced people because often, they do know what they're talking about.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I'm also 21 and will be graduating with the major I started with. Well, kinda. I came into my college without a plan (though my transcript said "English" for the longest time, likely based solely on a small comment in my interview.)My major really isn't a major and if any of my credits tranferred I would have left at some point. Basically, I'm getting my BA in Liberal Arts (Humanities). Its such a broad major that its lost all practicality. I will be graduating in the spring quite prepared for graduate school but with absolutely no real-world knowledge or skills, a valuable piece of information that was left out during my recruitment.
I find it amazing that there are people picking majors or involved courses of study in high school, much less middle school. I know I was thrilled when I graduated from high school because I would finally have the freedom to specialize. Sadly, as much as I adore the small seminars and philosophy departments that a liberal arts college can provide, I wasn't too fond of the sheer amount of math and science courses that I needed to take. Those were some precious writing and philosophy hours down the drain. I'm typing this post as I avoid doing a lab report for an advanced Physics class, a class I had to beg my way into since our college doesn't require us to take the same prerequisites that the university says we need. I've been making up the math as I go.
I'm all for exposure to a variety of academic and artistic fields, but I feel it has to be done in compliment to a common structure to compliment some kind of standards. I would have been thankful for any information in high school on the schools of thought and theology. It would have saved me a year of stressing about literary theory and how I just didn't care about post-modernism.
Except for those planning to attend graduate school, college is the last stop for most people before they enter the real world. I think four-year of specialized study is great place to start. Before then its about making sure students have the skills to do well in a college classroom and perhaps letting them have one chance to try lots of new things without consequence. I wish high schools offered as many electives as colleges. Atleast if you've tried it in high school you're not wasting hours that need to be spent on obtaining a degree. As much as I'd love to take more creative writing classes or try my hand at art, my school won't give me my diploma unless I finish Ecology and sacrifice a year of my health and sanity to complete a thesis.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
FlyingCow, just turn off the stove. Behold, life is shaped to our intent. Isn't that what science and philosophy are all about, shutting off stoves?
I know I drag out this quote from Hugo at every given oppurtunity, but
quote: To conquer matter is the first step; to realize the ideal is the second. Reflect on what progress has already accomplished. Formerly, the first human races beheld with terror the hydra pass before their eyes, breathing on the waters, the dragon which vomited flame, the griffin who was the monster of the air, and who flew with the wings of an eagle and the talons of a tiger; fearful beasts which were above man. Man, nevertheless, spread his snares, consecrated by intelligence, and finally conquered these monsters. We have vanquished the hydra, and it is called the locomotive; we are on the point of vanquishing the griffin, we already grasp it, and it is called the balloon. On the day when this Promethean task shall be accomplished, and when man shall have definitely harnessed to his will the triple Chimaera of antiquity, the hydra, the dragon and the griffin, he will be the master of water, fire, and of air, and he will be for the rest of animated creation that which the ancient gods formerly were to him. Courage, and onward!
Shawshank, I do not think that the world is "out to get" young people in any direct manner. What we do have, though, is a culture which excessively values knowledge from direct experience. In studying history, and, indeed, in studying all subjects, we hope to be able to learn from the experience of others. We are able to do this quite successfully, and yet, for some reason which remains mysterious to me, our culture downgrades this as "book-learning."
[ July 28, 2006, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Pelegius ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I just keep getting dragged back in. You sure you're not related to Tres or Baldar?
quote:FlyingCow, just turn off the stove. Behold, life is shaped to our intent. Isn't that what science and philosophy are all about, shutting off stoves?
The infant is ignorant of the concept of "stove" - as the infant is ignorant of the concept of turning said object "on" or "off". Through life experience, the infant learns these concepts and how to apply them.
A group of caring people on this board are telling you in a variety of ways "Look! Stove! Hot!" and trying to explain how to avoid getting burned. Sometimes one has to learn the hard way, as you seem intent on doing.
As you're not suspended in temporal stasis, time will march on, and life experience will thrust itself upon you whether you like it or not, refining and deepening your understanding and opinions. Of that I have no doubt.
I look forward to the day when the "angry young man" is replaced by the "wise mature man".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing about your quote, Pel, is that it would seem to suggest that humanity is now godlike. In retrospect, don't you think it's obvious that the bar was set a little low?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
FlyingCow, thus, knowledge must precede action.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Just thought this would be apropos:
quote:There's a place in the world for the angry young man With his working class ties and his radical plans He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl, He's always at home with his back to the wall. And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost, And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross- And he likes to be known as the angry young man.
Give a moment or two to the angry young man, With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand. He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood, It's a comfort to know his intentions are good. And he sits in a room with a lock on the door, With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor- And he likes to be known as the angry young man.
-from Prelude/Angry Young Man by Billy Joel
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:FlyingCow, thus, knowledge must precede action.
Pelegius, thus, learning precedes knowledge. Yet, you refuse to listen, and thus you don't learn.
Or, I should say, you limit your sources of learning overmuch, denying knowledge gained by listening to others with direct experience. You willfully paint an incomplete picture.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm 21, and I just graduated with a different degree than my original one. Although they were related.
But both of those majors were completely different from what I thought I wanted to do in high school. And I'm hoping to go to grad school for something entirely unrelated.
-pH
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius:
Shawshank, I do not think that the world is "out to get" young people in any direct manner. What we do have, though, is a culture which excessively values knowledge from direct experience. In studying history, and, indeed, in studying all subjects, we hope to be able to learn from the experience of others. We are able to do this quite successfully, and yet, for some reason which remains mysterious to me, our culture downgrades this as "book-learning."
That is because direct experience is the most efficient and in actuality is the most valuable. Life is not a series of intellectual curiosities- but rather it is a continuous ride on emotional roller coaster. Do you think you can grasp the horror of the holocaust of some book better than you can if you spoke to a surviving victim? Do you think that by reading the DSM-IV that can understand how a person with Bipolar person thinks and acts differently from the rest of the society, or how it affects their family? Is reading a book describing a hike through the Appalachian Trail the same thing as hiking it yourself?
And more importantly- can you really learn how to function in a community from authors that never even lived in our communities for they are centuries dead? What teaches you to be a parent- reading a parenting book, maybe even babysitting occassionally- or actually raising a child? What do you want to be like when you are older? I'm sorry but those questions are far more important than Existantialism or Non-Euclidean Geometry.
That is because in the end- practice is greater than theory. Some people think that Communism was great in theory (many still do) but think that in practice it was utterly terrible. Ideas are different in place in reality than as a mere abstract thought in the back of your mind.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Do you think you can grasp the horror of the holocaust of some book better than you can if you spoke to a surviving victim?" I have spoken to victims, but this too is an indirect experience. I have never lived through the Holocaust. I do not believe that it is necessary to live through horror to realize its horror, nor, clearly, do I think such a thing would be advisable, as that would entail recreating the Holocaust. Can we not learn to prevent something we have not lived through? If so, then we are truly damned.
FlyingCow, I do learn, I learnt long ago not to believe everything I was told, but to trust my own intellect and intuition over others advice. Maybe they are right and I am wrong, but this way, my mistakes, and successes, are my own.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Practice is not greater than theory, both must be had in appropriate dosages for effectice engagement. I will say, though, that the dosage of practice is larger than the dosage of theory.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow
quote:FlyingCow, thus, knowledge must precede action.
Pelegius, thus, learning precedes knowledge. Yet, you refuse to listen, and thus you don't learn.
Or, I should say, you limit your sources of learning overmuch, denying knowledge gained by listening to others with direct experience. You willfully paint an incomplete picture.
I believe there is more to the process of learning than just these three items. When done in a real life model it is (at least I think it is): Experience->Observations of experience->Critically thinking on experience and its results->Learn from the experience->Knowledge.
In a more controlled environment (say- a greater empirical one) it would be: Observation of anything->Test (the experience)-> Observations of differences of the unidentified object or situation-> Learn the cause of the difference (via continuous testing and observing)-> Knowledge.
While at the same one is completing any one of those models of learning- more situations are occuring and if they are observant can continually learn from that around them.
In the end Pelegius- it is important to note that you will never be able to learn as much from reading of another person's experiences for one very simple reason. You are not that person- you see the world in a different way that the other person- you've had different experiences than the one on whom you're relying on. Therefore they think differently than you so when you rely on their thoughts and feelings from a stimuli to which you are completely inexperienced with you are taking thoughts that might or might not be the ones you think and feelings you may or may not feel when put into that situation. When placed there though in that situation you might learn more about yourself and the stimulus whatever it may be.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Question, Pel. Say you are studying the reign of Philip of Macedonia and the world climate that led to Alexander's rise to power.
For source material on this subject, which would you prefer:
a) A paper written by a high school student on the subject
b) A paper written by a Ph.D. candidate on the subject
c) A paper written by a well respected, well published expert in the field who teaches at a prestigious university
d) A historical account written by a world renowned scholar in the field from the medieval period based on documents which have since been lost
e) A historical account written by a renowned historian who lived in the time period and wrote of personal interactions with Philip and the young Alexander? (and even here, you have the choice of translation or original Greek)
f) Documents written by Philip himself, or other key players at the time - personal correspondences, military orders, economic records, etc - discovered in an archaelogical dig
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
All. E and F are very important in the study of history, but their individual biases must be reconized, the Mediæval work is important in judging Phillip's reputation in historical times, etc.
And FlyingCow, I do listen, I do not, however, always agree.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:E and F are very important in the study of history
Why?
quote:I do listen, I do not, however, always agree.
Or respond, or acknowledge. You do often ignore, however.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
FlyingCow, becouse history has traditionaly been primarily or exculsively the study of period texts, this is, rightly, changing as history and archaelogy begin to become more complimentary, but such texts are still, and doubtless always will be, of great importance.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:history and archaelogy begin to become more complimentary
So, why is archaeology important to the study of history?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
How do you feel about history being written by the victors?
A historian I know and respect, told me he once administered a one word final to one of his favorite classes.
The question was "Why?"
The correct answer was: "It seemed like a good idea at the time"
How do you feel about that sort of perspective on history? The man has outstanding academic credentials yet he still says that's what history boils down to.
AJ
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Pel, I think the point most of us are accusing you of not listening to is that there is legitimate value in actual first-hand experience. I keep hearing over and over again from you that one doesn't need experience (at least as long as one has a lot of book learning).
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, if that is true then a moment sitting in the actual presence of that scene is worth 10,000 pictures or more. Just in terms of sensory perceptions I could spend 100 pages describing my experience sitting in my cubicle right now writing this.
None of us are saying that book learning isn't valuable, and certainly it can at times lead us in place of experience (see the stove example) but at other times it can't do justice to the full force of reality.
The reason you don't seem to value experience is that you're inexperienced enough not to know better.
A good example from my life: I was a fairly confident and responsible kid, but my first time travelling solo down to chicago(at 16) (taking the train in, finding the right bus routes, buying my own tickets, fending for my self for food all day and finding my way without instruction to the particular lecture hall in the planetarium I was looking for) I was scared as all hell (even though I knew in my mind what the steps were that I needed to take. However, after one or two times I was so much more comfortable, because I had picked up on the little things: where the ticket vendoring machine was, where are some convenient restaraunts, how long between busses, what does the door I'm looking for look like...)
It's not so much that my book learning was bad or useless (it did get me there) but it was incomplete.
The way I see you is with a high Int, but a very low Wis... work on that please, for your own good. And watch "Wierd Science" while you're at it, I think you'd benefit from it.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"BannaOj," yes, it usualy is. Or rather, their sources are most common, although the vanquished have often provided their views as well. The most important thing to remember is that all history is written by human beings, who cannot be trusted.
FlyingCow, I am not ignoring you, but neither do I pretend to understand what you are getting at.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"The reason you don't seem to value experience is that you're inexperienced enough not to know better." How charitable of you.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: And watch "Wierd Science" while you're at it, I think you'd benefit from it.
Now THAT'S comedy gold!
Mutant Biker: Can we keep this... between us? I'd hate to lose my teaching job...
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
when are you going to understand that this kind of statement isn't a judgement call Pel, it's an attempt at a wake-up call.
and the reasons I say it are: 1) You are young, and therefore only have a few years of realy experience under your belt, so it's hard to imagine that you have really gotten its importance yet (I knnow I didn't until well into college) 2) Everything you say screams that you haven't had enough experience yet to get it...
again, not a judgement call, just a statement of youth.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hey Pel, I can think of an analogy in my own life that might clarify a bit. I'm 27 now. I really, really don't want kids. I don't think I'm ever going to want them. In fact I'm pretty darn certain of it.
However, I know sometimes in the 30s female hormones kick in, and women experience massive desires to have children. I know someone who had her tubes tied at about my age and is very happy with her decision not to have kids. I've strongly considered it myself. But, I haven't actually experienced my 30s yet, and maybe my child-mothering instincts will kick in yet. I realize I'm inexperienced not to know better at this point. Don't know when I will be experienced to know yet either. That's just life.
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Pel, it's not that you don't agree that annoys people. Lots of people don't agree with me, and that's cool. It's not that you ignore people either. It's that you dismiss people's expertise out of hand. When someone who is an expert in something disagrees with me, I might be right and s/he might be wrong. But I should at least try to find a third angle to view the situation from, one where my thoughts and my "opponent's" thoughts could possibly coexist. (EDIT: And if you look back over my interactions with FlyingCow, for instance, you might notice that I have tried to do just that myself. I know that if we really compared philosophies, he and I probably aren't entirely in agreement with each other. But I don't disrespect his learning or his observations. I believe we may be looking at the situation from different angles, and it's possible for both of our philosophies to have some validity.) I also had better devote at least a couple of minutes to thinking about the possibility that I could be wrong.
Lots of people have actually had more or less this same idea for a secondary school curriculum. Some of them are (I imagine) older or better-credentialed than I am. Many are less. So nothing is right or wrong because I say it is. But you can't dismiss my experience altogether. You can't even say that all perspectives are equal--they are clearly not, and saying so is just a democratic-seeming form of dismissal.
I don't know why I keep trying to make you understand. I must see some potential in you, but I am seriously getting tired of the effort.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I was very respectful to people who disagreed with me, explaining my position on each issue. No, I did not substantially modify my curriculum, but this is because, while I respected the views of others, I did not consider them, upon reflection, to be in accordance with the philosophy behind the two curricula I have proposed. Doubtless, they would say the same about my ideas.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Maybe instead of not addressing what you don't understand, you could ask a question, or ask him to rephrase. Do you see why not addressing it because you don't understand makes it hard for people to take you seriously?
How do you feel in real life when you say something and someone acts as if you hadn't spoken?
Ni!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You were not respectful; you were dismissive. You said people were wrong, but you did not attempt to reconcile how people with more experience and education could simply be wrong. They just were, because they disagreed with you. The fact is, people are rarely entirely wrong or entirely right. When you respect people you try to find common ground.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Pelegius,
What I'm getting at is something you undoubtedly learned in middle school or early high school (I'm assuming here that your teachers weren't totally lost in the woods, but I could be wrong).
There are several types of sources you can draw upon, and those sources have differing values.
The most important of these are primary sources, which come from actual first hand accounts, interviews with witnesses to an event, artifact evidence, archaeological evidence, etc.
The next level consists of secondary sources, which are conclusions and writings based on primary sources. These add an extra layer of distance between the learner and the subject, and aren't as valuable because you have to interpret information through an extra set of biases.
Further down the list are tertiary sources, which were based off of other secondary sources. And so on.
My list earlier was trying to gauge your understanding of this. Obviously, an actual first hand account written by an observer to the events of that period (primary source) would be preferable over a high school paper on the subject (tertiary or lower, based on secondary and tertiary sources, with perhaps some primary sources.)
This is why archaeology is so important to history. It's also why anthropology is so important. These fields search for primary sources (a papyrus scroll showing economic data leading up to the rise of a great military power, for instance) which are used to shape our understanding of history. If a newly found primary source and secondary source contradict, the secondary source (usually) has interpreted something wrong.
The point is that people on this forum who have had personal life experience are valuable primary sources for you to listen to and learn from. You do not have to agree with their views, certainly, but you seem far to quick to either a) ignore their points and not reevaluate your own opinions based on new information or b) flatly refute their experiences (primary sources) out of hand.
As a self-proclaimed history student who is interested in classical study, you must surely understand why primary sources are preferable in many ways to secondary sources. Why is it, then, that you find it so hard to value life experience? To see why Ic and myself are so frustrated after handing you primary source experience over years of educating students, only to watch as you blindly continue on your path without acknowledging or adapting to new information?
A good historian adapts his (or her) theories when new primary sources are discovered or revealed, reconciling any contradictions there may be. You have shown a marked reluctance to even acknowledge opinions or points made outside your own views.
Let's look at two conversations. Which is more rational?
quote:Convo 1
Person 1: "I am right." Person 2: "What about this, that and the other thing?" Person 1: "That's interesting. As for this, you need to remember... As for that, I see your point. Let me try a different angle on my opinion... As for the other thing, I don't see how that's relevant. Person 2: "Good point about this. I still don't see how you've accounted for that. The other thing is relevant because..." Person 1: As for that I've been thinking more on it, and I think I may need to readjust my thoughts. Get back to me. As for the other thing I still don't see it as relevant because of..."
In this conversation, Person 1 is receptive to criticism and other opinions, and does his best to respond to comments made. Weaknesses in the argument are admitted to and adjusted for, and misunderstandings are asked about.
quote:Convo 2
Person 1: "I am right." Person 2: "What about this, that and the other thing?" Person 1: "I am right." Person 2: "You didn't even address this, that and the other thing." Person 1: "I am right." Person 2: "Your argument doesn't make any sense, and you aren't answering my points." Person 1: "I am right. I make perfect sense. Stop attacking me."
In this conversation, Person 1 is not receptive to others ideas and becomes defensive when questioned about his argument.
We've seen a lot more of Convo 2 from you than we have Convo 1.
Edit: typo.
Edit 2: Oops! First typo I fixed wasn't even what you were talking about. Last sentence has been fixed, now.
[ July 28, 2006, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Typo or irony? Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Icarus, which of the mutually exclusive views should I be trying to reconcile with my own. On the other thread, we had every opinion from "Algebra should not be taught in Middle School" to "Both Algebra and Geometry should be taught in Middle School," clearly these views cannot be reconciled, except in so much as the middle ground existed in my proposition. On my threads, I was dismissed far more than I dismissed, particularly in regards to learning disabilities ( I pointed out several facts and was then criticized for not taking into account a specific disability which was neither named nor described.) And, on this thread, I cannot begin to reconcile the view that young people lack the intelligence and maturity to make decisions regarding their education with the view that they do. That which you ask of me is not logically possible, I am sorry for that, but it is not my fault.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: on this thread, I cannot begin to reconcile the view that young people lack the intelligence and maturity to make decisions regarding their education with the view that they do.
Here's the answer: some young people can make their own educational decisions, some can't. Most aren't yet capable of making the decisions that are in their own best interests for later on in life. But some are.
There is no logical fallacy. They both exist and are true.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:On my threads, I was dismissed far more than I dismissed, particularly in regards to learning disabilities ( I pointed out several facts and was then criticized for not taking into account a specific disability which was neither named nor described.)
The reverse of this is true. You pointed out that one specific disability -- dyslexia -- is occasionally not crippling, and from this observation made the generalization that all children can learn a challenging curriculum.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"They both exist and are true" But not much use for building curricula.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I guess the real question is, where on ye old Bell Curve do you target your curriculum.
Would you agree that your curriculum may be more difficult than the average child can handle at that age?
AJ
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Tom, all true learning disabilities that I know (dyslexia, dysgrapia, dysphasia, dyscalcaculia and dyspraxia) are roughly equal in severity, but affect different aspects. (The exception would by dysphasia, which, uncorrected, may cause problems in nearly all areas of life, but less significantly so than being deaf.)
BannaOJ, No, I would not agree that my curriculum is more difficult than the average child can handle at that age, although it is certainly more difficult than the average child is asked to handle at that age.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, all true learning disabilities that I know (dyslexia, dysgrapia, dysphasia, dyscalcaculia and dyspraxia) are roughly equal in severity, but affect different aspects.
I would suggest that you aren't qualified under any criteria to make this determination, nor even to determine what constitutes a "true" learning disability.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually, I did not argue with your math proposal, Pel. Who proposed that Algebra and Geometry should be taught in middle school? I don't quite remember that.
It's not my job to come up with reconciliations for you, as that would involve me suggesting views I don't actually hold. Notice, however, that reconciling differing views was only one option I suggested among many. But one possible middle ground is teaching those advanced classes, but not to all kids. Another option is simply questioning people. Then there's trying to raise objections to their beliefs, and answer people's criticisms of your own. ("You're wrong, because my father was a pediatrician and he said so, and my teacher studied with Alex Trebek and Sartre, and he thinks you're wrong also," by the way, is not an objection. It is a dismissal.) A thoughtful poster would not use one of these techniques all the time, but use all of them from time to time, as the situation warrants.
For instance, in one interaction between FlyingCow and myself on one of these threads, he seemed to be raising an objection to what I was arguing. In his objection, he cited his observations and experience as a teacher. I questioned his objection, or, if you prefer, I raised an objection to it. In my rebuttal, I cited my experience as a parent. In the end, we found common ground, that rejected neither my intelligence and experience or his. It's entirely possible that we might have failed to do so, and agreed amicably to disagree. If that had been the case, though, I would still respect FlyingCow, despite thinking he was egregiously wrong in this particular, because I know something of his experiences, his talents, and his qualifications. If he were a stranger I did not know, I might seek to explore what has lead him to his erroneous conclusions. When I disagree with someone, I don't usually say "You're wrong," but rather "I disagree, because . . ." (Unless I am being cheeky with someone I know well enough to know that they will take it well.)
And, finally, if I disagree with someone who clearly has more education and experience in the area than I do, I give their opinion quite a bit more weight. If I still disagree, I had better think long and hard about how an intelligent, qualified person could be wrong about his/her own area of expertise. If I disagree with Rabbit about environmental science, I had better come up with something a little better than "she's just wrong, because my shallow reading indicates otherwise."
-o-
quote:( I pointed out several facts and was then criticized for not taking into account a specific disability which was neither named nor described.)
You were dismissed with regard to learning disability because you made an erroneous assertion about what learning disabilities existed and what they entailed. Did you follow FlyingCow's links? I did not actually address your statements, because they were insulting. You acted so all-knowing that you had the gall to correct me when it came to what my kids could and could not do . . . you were not worth replying to at that point. (And that brings me back to how you perceive people slamming you when in fact they merely disagree with you. When I post in your threads at all, I am taking you seriously. When I decide you are not worth taking seriously, I will simply not reply to you at all.)
quote:And, on this thread, I cannot begin to reconcile the view that young people lack the intelligence and maturity to make decisions regarding their education with the view that they do.
This is a recurring issue with you--whether it's deliberate or not, you repeatedly ascribe to people things that they have not said. People are slamming you. People are bullying you. You have done nothing wrong, and are victimized at every turn! (Here's a bit of advice, in the form of a rhetorical question: What's the one common factor in all of your negative interactions?)
Nobody proposed the view that young people lacked the intelligence and maturity to make decisions regarding their education. While many of us, including myself, proposed the view that they do*, only you proposed the view that they should be entrusted with the right to make all the decisions with regard to their education. And you're right, you can't reconcile an extremist view with any differing views. For that reason, I have few, if any extremist views. (Which is not to say that extremist views are necessarily always wrong. I just happen to think they often are.) So if you can't reconcile your extremist view with our moderate views, you will have to stick with one of the many other options for polite discourse. Those of us with more moderate opinions can easily find common ground, fine-tuning how many electives kids should have, how many years of core subjects they should take, what should be considered core for all kids and what should not . . .
*But you weren't including me there, were you? You were dishonestly arguing against a straw-man version of my argument. Did you somehow miss all the posts where I talked about what a shame it was that my school did not allow any electives? And yet somehow you wish to portray me as arguing against giving young people choices? Are you blind or dishonest? Which is it, man?
-o-
The goal here is not universal agreement. The goals are understanding the beliefs those you disagree with, seeing if your ideas stand up to challenges from intelligent peers (and non-peers), and being able to coexist in at least a pretense of friendliness with those whom you disagree with.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Why? What makes you think the average child *can* handle the advanced subjects at that age?
I'm not trying to be faecitious here, I really want to know. You see, I used to believe the same thing you did. Because *I* could do it at that age couldn't everybody?
Since I was homeschooled, the closest I could come to someone else going through the same educational process would be using my siblings. And guess what? My mother did the same things with them that she did with me. I was reading by the age of 3, neither of my siblings did. The one sibling didn't start reading til about 6 tne other about 5. They aren't any dumber than I am, they just learned things at a different pace than I did. Right there it makes a huge difference in what a child can handle at any given age. I took Calculus at 15, one of my siblings took it about 19, and the other never took it.
What I'm saying is that I think you are judging average by your own abilities. I don't believe that your ablities are actually average, and as a result I think your curriculum is more difficult than the average child can handle at that age.
AJ
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Tom, that list was taken from Wikipedia, which, in turn, took it from the U.S. government, that list is as official as they get.
BannaOJ, yes, the average child, not any child, but the average child.
" I did not actually address your statements, because they were insulting. You acted so all-knowing that you had the gall to correct me when it came to what my kids could and could not do" My "know it all attitude" is based on seventeen years of living with learning disabilities (possibly all of the ones I listed, at least three.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: BannaOJ, No, I would not agree that my curriculum is more difficult than the average child can handle at that age, although it is certainly more difficult than the average child is asked to handle at that age.
Back it up or admit you're wrong. I have taught close to two thousand children, and I say you're mistaken. Now explain why I'm wrong, and try to do it without insulting me. Refer freely to your experience, if you have any, and your research, if you've done any, and your education courses, if you've taken any. Don't say that I am insulting orbullying you by demanding that you back up your belief. Just back it up or admit that you have no backing, that it's just a gut feeling, and let people come to their own conclusions. (FWIW, I have seen people say, "I can't refute your evidence. I just disagree for instinctive reasons." In fact, I think I've done it myself at least once. But don't fail to back up your assertions, and then whine about not having your opinion treated with enough respect.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Tom, all true learning disabilities that I know (dyslexia, dysgrapia, dysphasia, dyscalcaculia and dyspraxia) are roughly equal in severity, but affect different aspects. (The exception would by dysphasia, which, uncorrected, may cause problems in nearly all areas of life, but less significantly so than being deaf.)
They're not even equal in severity within themselves. Not all dyslexics have it to the same degree. And between each other, they are not "equal," what they are, possibly, is "un-comparable."
-o-
quote: My "know it all attitude" is based on seventeen years of living with learning disabilities (possibly all of the ones I listed, at least three.)
Is it possible that your seventeen years of living with learning disabilities doesn't make you an expert on all learning disabilities?
Incidentally, why don't you know which learning disabilities you have? Have you been diagnosed by a doctor? With which ones?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Simple, all of those courses have been taught to average children at one point or another, generaly at the same time, many are still being taught at some schools in the U.S. and Europe. These were not experiments, but the standard of education in Western Europe and the Eastern United States for arround half a millenium. While most students did not attend school, the choice of who did was decidedly not based on intellect, as many of those aristocrats were thick as boards.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Pelegius how are you judging average? Are you judging it against your own abilities or everyone else's?
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Those thick aristocrats had all sorts of advantages over poor, hungry, inner-city kids.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Incidentally, why don't you know which learning disabilities you have? Have you been diagnosed by a doctor? With which ones?" By several doctors, none of whom agreed. Dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyspraxia are all almost certainly present, each apparently quite severe. (In find it hard to believe that I was the most dyslexic child ever seen by the specialist in learning disabilities, as I know read better than most of his "less dyslexic" students, but I see evidence of my dyslexia in my poor spelling and of dysgraphia and dyspraxia when ever I write or run. I was very happy to lear that Asimov was dyspraxic, apparently more so than I am becouse he couldn't learn to swim.)
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
OJ, average here = IQ of 100.
Icarus, doubtless, but intellegence, which is what matters, was not one of them. I realize that familial concerns play a huge part in education, and that a change in curriculum would have to be accompinied by other changes as well (better school lunches, and I am interested in the results of expirements done with boarding magnet schools for inner-city teens.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:that list was taken from Wikipedia, which, in turn, took it from the U.S. government, that list is as official as they get
The list on Wikipedia starts with the phrase: "some of them are as follows..."
Some, i.e. not an exclusive list.
Moreover, nowhere in that list does a single entry indicate that each disability is of equivalent seriousness.
And nowhere does it suggest that people are equally affected by these disabilities. I have around eight dyslexic friends. Six of them are highly functional; one is pretty much illiterate. One of them can read pretty much anything that someone else writes, but has a curious blind spot in that he cannot read anything he writes but can read anything he types. (This made, by the way, playing D&D with him while growing up very fun: "Tom, can you tell me what's on my character sheet?" "That's a +2 dagger." "Oh. I didn't think I was wielding a cauliflower.")
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
But even though I come firmly down on the side of educational freedom there still are some minimum standards of exposure. I passed a college freshman english course at 15, which was equivalent proof as far as the universities are concerned, that it didn't matter whether I'd had 4 years of English or not.
But I still don't think that the average child can do the curriculum you propose. Maybe it is possible, with a very low teacher to student ratio, as existed in the case of the board thick aristocrats and their paid tutors, yet I doubt it.
AJ
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: OJ, average here = IQ of 100.
Icarus, doubtless, but intellegence, which is what matters, was not one of them. I realize that familial concerns play a huge part in education, and that a change in curriculum would have to be accompinied by other changes as well (better school lunches, and I am interested in the results of expirements done with boarding magnet schools for inner-city teens.)
Actually, based on the studies I have read, IQ is defintely affected by environment, which is affected by money. For example, what foods I eat right now can shift IQ (I am pregnant), which is why my husband keeps pushing shrimp on me. Even the date of birth can matter if it affects what grade the kid can drop out at. Parenting sites love to list how you can and can't raise kids IQ.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Pel, thank you for not addressing or recognizing anything in my last post - designed and written expressly to address the comment you made that you "didn't know what I was getting at."
quote:Tom, that list was taken from Wikipedia, which, in turn, took it from the U.S. government, that list is as official as they get.
Again, this is dismissive. You chose one tertiary source (a highly questionable one), and implied that it correctly reflected information from a secondary source (the umbrella "US Government" sans any sort of official study or bill or other title).
And after you chose this one source, you refused to look at any other sources - namely the several I linked to in an effort to inform you about the nature of learning and developmental disabilities found in our nation's schools.
After refusing to look at new source material, you stubbornly cling to your previous (and incorrect) assertion about how learning disabilities (still completely ignorant of developmental disabilities) are limited in scope and can be overcome by all.
This is intellectually dishonest, to yourself and to your audience. It is akin to making a claim that the Greeks only had access to certain types of weapons, then ignoring evidence discovered to the contrary when presented to you.
THIS is one reason why many people find you frustrating.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
FlyingCow, the use of tertiary sources, and of Wikipedia in particular, is par for the course.
"still completely ignorant of developmental disabilities" I am unfamiliar with the term. I could guess at its meaning, but I dare not risk it.
". Maybe it is possible, with a very low teacher to student ratio, as existed in the case of the board thick aristocrats and their paid tutors" Not that low, one teacher to every ten or fifteen students should work, although one to every five would be ideal.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
One teacher to five pupils would be ideal. Sign me up.
We would have to drastically change our tax structure, though. We'd need at least six or seven times as much funding as we currently have for education. I personally could not afford to pay more in taxes, but maybe we could cut funding to something else.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
. . . but let me try to put this as gently as I can . . . have you looked at those realities?
Because a lot of our objections to you are rooted in those realities. The reality than we will not double, let alone quintuple, the funding for education. The reality that you would not be able to find enough qualified school teachers for your proposed system, anywhere in the country. This is what people are objecting to. They're saying "This is not realistic, because of _____ reality that you have not accounted for." And rather than giving compelling arguments why it is, or acknowledging that this is just your science fiction dream of what education could be, you're crying about what a victim you are.
(It's kind of like when people talk of paying teachers like professionals. It's a nice idea; I'm all for it. But it's not a reality. It won't happen anytime soon, for a lot of reasons.)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: FlyingCow, the use of tertiary sources, and of Wikipedia in particular, is par for the course.
I don't know about anyone else here, but the last time I had to do research for something in an academic environment, Wikipedia was completely unacceptable.
I'm not saying that Hatrack requires the utmost in research. I'm just saying that Hatrackers are not the only ones who don't think WIkipedia is all that reliable. So no, using Wikipedia is not par for the course. When it comes to that particular subject, you could've found far more just Googling the term.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Or, you know, following FlyingCow's links.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
pH, on Hatrack, and on the other forum I have posted at, Wikipedia was by far the most common source (and rumours of its lack of reliability are generaly exagerated).
Icarus, I think it is a given that educational spending in this country does need to be increased exponitaly. I have ideas on how to do this, most of which do not involve raising taxes, but, with the exception of cutting pork spending and spending on Congressmen's offices, I do not think my suggestions would be very popular (massive slash on military spending, especialy ending cold-war era projects, would be a place to start.)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
That's funny Pel, since it's been my observation that during serious Hatrack debates, Wikipedia is not the preferred source.
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Maybe I carry biases from Ornery, were Wikipedia was the only source agreed not to be partisan.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Considering Wikipedia went through about forty revisions the day Kenneth Lay went underground (figuratively or literally; the jury's still out), it's hard to accept a source that's so fluid and can be modified at any time by anyone.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
It has, according to Nature, only one more error per article than Britannica on average, and with many more articles of much greater length and depth. I think you may underestimate how seriously Wikipedians take their work and how hard the strive to make it accurate and informative. Wikipedia has great potential, not just as an encyclopedia but as a new medium for a new age. Never before have so many people from so many different backgrounds, in almost every country, worked together to produce such a product, and they do it through direct democracy based not on blind ballots but on open arguments. Have you read our discussion pages? The color of the world is changing.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Right.
Pel, read your last post for relevance and factual accuracy and ask yourself a few questions. Do you know enough about the study to cite it? Do you realize that "only one more error per article than Britannica on average" doesn't make sense since we don't know how large the set is? When you say "in almost every country," do you really have in mind the vastness of this world?
It's a matter of sloppiness, but since what you are talking about is as important as education, I think that it would serve your cause better, though it may be a blow to your ego, to go at this with a little more humility.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hem hem.
Although I think Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and I contribute to a couple of pages, I would never, ever, ever use it directly for an essay/paper. Background, yes- it is perfect for getting the language and a basic understanding of a subject. The Wiki Documents or whatever they are called, maybe. But for information on an essay? No. never.
Of course, I would probably not use the Britannica either.
Both are tertiary sources that are highly restricted in most of the classes I attend. Usually at my University it is stipulated you use only one or two, probably for basic facts that don't quite fall under the common-knowledge umbrella.
Internet tertiary sources are less reliable than paper tertiary sources, regardless of how many people edit them. In many cases they are less than tertiary and that's just not good enough in academic essays or papers. Primary or secondary only- I would only use primary sources (official sites and the like) on the internet unless the secondary source had the credibility of a journal or was a part of a published book or something.
Wikipedia looks very bad on a bibliography. I would never put it on there unless I had no other choice and I was sure it was right. Most professors I have, if not explictly banned Wikipedia, have given off the kind of vibe that says "Wikipedia is innapropriate in my class room." TAs are not so squeamish about their views. "Don't use Wikipedia," they say.
Besides, it looks very lazy. Compared to the depth of information you can get from a proper book, journal or primary source, it is fractional. In fact, I mostly don't use Wikipedia because it simply does not provide enough information. Usually on a single research essay I might read fifteen books (on a fifteen page paper) and a couple of primary-source websites.
By that time, Wikipedia's a drop in the bucket.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Teshi, I too would not use Britannica. It became unacceptable for us to use encyclopedias for papers in high school.
And, yes Wikipedia does have contributors from almost every country, although devaloped countries are, naturaly, vastly over-repsented. There are Wikipedias in Zulu, Mongolian, Armenian and Basque.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Teshi, this is Hatrack, surely we can avoid academic snobbery here.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Icarus -
quote:(It's kind of like when people talk of paying teachers like professionals. It's a nice idea; I'm all for it. But it's not a reality. It won't happen anytime soon, for a lot of reasons.)
I'm interested in your reasons for why it won't happen. I can think of a few off the top of my head, but I think you, having direct experience as a teacher, might have some insights I lack on the subject (Sorry, I couldn't resist ).
Pelegius, Why do you think spending needs to be increased exponentially here? We already spend way more per student than just about every other country out there, including the ones that outperform us on the academic tests all the time. I agree that our system needs work, but throwing more money at the problem hasn't seemed to work out that well so far, what makes you think it will in the future?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Teshi, this is Hatrack, surely we can avoid academic snobbery here.
Coming from you, this statement makes me .
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Kamisaki, money, intelligently spent, is needed. Firstly, in no particular order, to increase salaries of teachers to an appropriate level (I cannot tell you how many people, extremely smart people, have told me that they would teach if they did not have a family to support. Yes, their logic is slightly flawed and their life philosophy may need to be addressed, but they do have a point.) Secondly, we need better supplies, including new buildings. (Even in wealthy districts, schools are depressing, which is hardly the best atmosphere for learning.) Finally, to hire more teachers.
Because we can do this, because we have the money to do so, in fact.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think you may underestimate how seriously Wikipedians take their work and how hard the strive to make it accurate and informative.
Whether or not Wikipedia is a good source, the fact remains that your source doesn't say what you think it does, Pel.
Essential to your argument are the following assertions:
1) That the disabilities listed on Wikipedia are the only learning disabilities which exist. As the list starts with the word "some," it's clear that this list is meant to be a sampling. Moreover, spending even a few moments with any other source on learning disabilities makes it clear that other disabilities not only exist but are recognized by the government.
2) That the disabilities you've listed are all equal in severity. Nowhere on Wikipedia or in the documentation cited on Wikipedia is this suggested.
3) That all disabilities are equally severe for all individuals. Again, nowhere is this cited, and counter-evidence has already been submitted on this thread.
So whether or not Wikipedia is a good source of information, it is not providing the information you need to support your claims.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"That all disabilities are equally severe for all individuals." This, I never claimed. I actually claim that my disabilities are actually quite severe, more severe than average, which clearly contradicts the claim I am said to have made.
I will admit my bias: I have often seen disabilities which are not learning disabilities clustered with them, not by official sources but by others. This causes me great pain, as many of these students have other problems, usually low I.Q.s, which are unrelated to learning disabilities. I have starved to remove any connotation of low I.Q. from the term, and have probably been overly vigorous and not careful enough in my attempts.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Kamisaki, because we have more teachers than any other country (I don't have research to back it up, but I bet you a nickel that's true). According to the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (from the last census), the average person with a bachelor's degree in the US earns nearly fifty thousand dollars a year. Remember, that's with teachers as an outlier bringing the average down, so if you could take teachers out of that average, the real number would go up. The current number would be about a 25% increase over what I earned last year, and I'm a twelve-year veteran. If you wanted to increase every teacher's salary by 25%, where would the money come from? Would we be able to buy books? Reduce class sizes? Build new schools? Buy new uniforms for the football team? Get paper for our copiers and laser printers?
According to the census, there are 6.2 million teachers in the united states. Giving them all an extra $12,000 a year, say, would cost $74,400,000,000. Where would 74 billion dollars come from? How much of an increased tax burden could you support? For myself, the answer is not much. (But then, if you gave me a 25% raise, I suppose that answer might change!)
I don't know enough about national economics to get a clear sense of just how much money that is, in national terms, but I just don't think education is a high enough priority to warrant that kind of spending. Especially not when the system limps along just fine as it is, and a limping educational system can't help but favor those who already have political power.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Yes, their logic is slightly flawed and their life philosophy may need to be addressed . . .
Spoken like someone who does not have kids.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Neither did either of the people whom I remember hearing this from.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Pel, I've read the study. I read the study when it came out, and I'm telling you that "only one more error per article than Britannica on average" is an in appropriate summation of any study unless you list the sample size, or at least the average number of facts per article, or some sort of ratio. The problem isn't the study. It's your reporting of the study. Wow, I really do find you exasperating, you are like a living embodiment of the saying, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But Pel, you seem to believe that since you consider your learning disabilities to be severe and because you feel that you are still able to learn at a higher than average level, others should be able to do the same thing.
It simply doesn't work that way. I have severe OCD, and although I don't think anyone considers ocd to be a learning disorder, it does put many restrictions on mental function. I can still academically outpace my peers, and I have always been able to do so. However, I recognize that others may not have the same advantages as I do, and I have been told outright by more than one of my doctors that I am ridiculously intelligent, my mind is much more capable than it may outwardly seem because of my disorder (and believe me, I was asked to skip high school and go straight to a four-year college at 14, so I still seem pretty smart ), and were I not so bright, it would be very unlikely that I would be able to function, much less excel. Of course, I also have the advantage of being able to afford competent, private care, which makes a very big difference as well.
I think I'm not alone when I say that you don't seem to recognize that something being easy for you does not make it easy for others.
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Irami, I am fairly certain that if I quoted Alexander Pope in the manner you have, it would become a major issue.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"something being easy for you does not make it easy for others." Not everything comes easily to me, I have to work harder than the vast majority of my peers at some things (Elementary school, with penmanship and spelling as subjects was awful, the price I paid for a parochial education on the level of my peers, rather than a public school with special ed classes.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pel, when you say "my learning disabilities are more serious," I find myself laughing.
Dude, you don't even know if you are learning-disabled. You've never even gotten a coherent diagnosis. Frankly, I think you've been sent to "experts" who couldn't find their respective asses with a copy of Portnoy's Complaint, and who've done some damage to you by confusing personality traits with inborn flaws.
I'll tell you again: one of my friends is so dyslexic that he's functionally illiterate. He can read only in specific controlled settings, with paper and text of specific colors and contrast levels. His brain simply isn't physically capable of converting the symbols to letters and letters to words under other circumstances.
That's severe dyslexia. Occasionally typing "I have starved" when what you mean is "I have strived" is not severe dyslexia.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Kamisaki, money, intelligently spent, is needed. Firstly, in no particular order, to increase salaries of teachers to an appropriate level (I cannot tell you how many people, extremely smart people, have told me that they would teach if they did not have a family to support. Yes, their logic is slightly flawed and their life philosophy may need to be addressed, but they do have a point.) Secondly, we need better supplies, including new buildings. (Even in wealthy districts, schools are depressing, which is hardly the best atmosphere for learning.) Finally, to hire more teachers.
Because we can do this, because we have the money to do so, in fact.
I'll wait to respond to your "pay teachers more" point until after I hear what Icarus has to say, but don't think I'm ignoring you on that part.
EDIT: Okay, Icarus responded while was typing that the first time, and I agree with pretty much everything he says as to why it won't happen. I do have a few other things to say about it, though. First, what do you think is valid pay for a teacher? Because while it is true that they do get paid lower than other professions with similar levels of experience, there are other factors that make teaching a more attractive profession than those other jobs. First off is that whole "priorities" issue you talked about. Many people do want to teach the younger generation enough to be willing to take a pay cut in order to do it. Second is that teachers usually only work for nine months out of the year, making teaching one of the careers more conducive to having a family and raising kids. Last is that teachers often get better benefits (it being a government job) than private sector jobs. So all those are reasons why teachers will never get as much in straight dollar amounts as other professionals. Now whether their current pay levels are still too low even after accounting for those issues, that's debatable, and is an issue that needs to be defined on a regional basis, I think.
As far as new buildings, I don't really see that as a problem. Of course, I live in Las Vegas, and due to the huge growth rate we've had here, most of the schools are new, many of them built within the last 10-15 years. I'd imagine the situation is similar in many places in the west, probably not so much further east. So maybe that's something that needs to be done on a case by case basis.
And hiring more teachers would probably be the best use for money.
However, I think that cutting down on administrative and bureaucratic costs would be give us better bang for our buck, and allowing more competition from private schools and homeschool programs would do more to improve education than just spending more money one doing the same things we do now.
[ July 29, 2006, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Kamisaki ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"However, I think that cutting down on administrative and bureaucratic costs would be give us better bang for our buck, and allowing more competition from private schools and homeschool programs would do more to improve education than just spending more money one doing the same things we do now." Doubtless.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What Tom said.
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Dude, you don't even know if you are learning-disabled. You've never even gotten a coherent diagnosis." Dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyspraxia are all certain. Either those or unknown conditions with the same symptoms, but this is as certain as anything is in psychiatry. These diagnoses were agreed upon by I think three psychiatrists and several teachers who were specialists in teaching learning disabled kids.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Pel, just a head's up that I edited my previous post to include Icarus' comments.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"First, what do you think is valid pay for a teacher?" That’s difficult to say, much depends on where they live (my city is much cheaper than New York or San Francisco or London.) I think that, for a well-experienced teacher (I am talking about one with a thirty year career behind him) with a graduate degree, living in a very expensive city, that $90-100,000 U.S. does not seem excessive, although only a small minority would ever be paid this.
My middle school scammed teachers, low pay (I mean lower than average) and almost no benefits. My secondary school is much better and it is possible to teach there without having been born or married rich.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Second is that teachers usually only work for nine months out of the year, making teaching one of the careers more conducive to having a family and raising kids.
My dad, who is a teacher, calls it three months of forced unemployment. In his district, you can choose whether to get regular paychecks the months you are working, or to have your salary split into smaller paychecks spread out over all 12 months. He and most other teachers I know have to find other summer work every year.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Well, I do agree that teacher pay should depend on where they are at; unfortunately I don't know if I disagree or agree with your $90-100,00 figure for a 30 year teacher, since I don't know what experienced teachers make now. I know in Vegas teacher salary starts out at just under $40,000, and I have no idea how much it increases for each year of experience.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Amilia, What level does your father teach? Many secondary school teachers I know can get grants to study during the summer (on of my favorite profs is at a Hannah Arendt seminar in San Francisco right now, thanks to the government.)
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Vegas certainly does better than San Antonio.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
He teaches middle school-- 6th and 7th graders.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia:
quote:Second is that teachers usually only work for nine months out of the year, making teaching one of the careers more conducive to having a family and raising kids.
My dad, who is a teacher, calls it three months of forced unemployment. In his district, you can choose whether to get regular paychecks the months you are working, or to have your salary split into smaller paychecks spread out over all 12 months. He and most other teachers I know have to find other summer work every year.
Hmmm... Okay, so it's not a positive for everybody. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a positive for many. My uncle, for one. He loves having summers off.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Oh, I'm not saying that it is never a positive. Just that it can be an inconvenience. And to agree with your point. Whether or not it is a positive, it is one of the reasons teachers are paid less per year than other professionals.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pel, I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge the rest of my criticisms, or even the main thrust of my point: that the assertion that all children with learning disabilities can be safely assumed to be able to absorb a curriculum of any difficulty is highly flawed.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Pel, I'm curious as to how or why your original post's thesis of no curriculum metamorphed into a thesis where as a subtopic you might assert "all children with learning disabilities can be safely assumed to be able to absorb a curriculum of any difficulty."
The quote is in Tom's word's because I'm lazy, but I skimmed the thread, and you do say similar things.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think we have so many pedagogy threads that they're getting crossed. The assertion Tom is referring to was in his common middle school curriculum thread.
And I seem to have lost a post here, somewhere. Maybe I accidentally made it somewhere else.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Dude, you don't even know if you are learning-disabled. You've never even gotten a coherent diagnosis." Dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyspraxia are all certain. Either those or unknown conditions with the same symptoms, but this is as certain as anything is in psychiatry. These diagnoses were agreed upon by I think three psychiatrists and several teachers who were specialists in teaching learning disabled kids.
First of all, in terms of psychiatry (although I don't know specifically about learning disorders), psychiatrists DON'T officially diagnose patients under 18.
On top of that, why does this matter? Just because you had a hard time and pulled through doesn't mean that everyone else can do so.
I feel as though you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that many people are fundamentally different than yourself, and that it isn't practical to assume that everyone can ever be in the same circumstances as you have been.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Found it:
quote:FWIW, shortly after I joined Hatrack, in an argument about teacher pay, I calculated, using census data, the average pay rate per hour of about a dozen occupations requiring a bachelor's degree. I failed to find a single one that averaged less per hour than teaching did. So I just wanted to throw out there that it wasn't just because teachers have a quarter of the year off.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
pH, they most certainly do, although those that do are usualy specialists (you may be right about mental illnesses such as Bipolar disorder, but they do diagnose such problems as ADD, Autism etc.)
Morbo, Icarus is generaly right, although I never said what Tom says I did (I said that all children with average or above average intellegence, even if they had learning disabilities, could learn my curriculum, which is rather a different claim.)
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Oh, I totally agree that having summers off is only one of the reasons for a lower pay rate. Thanks for clarifying that, Icarus.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I said that all children with average or above average intellegence, even if they had learning disabilities, could learn my curriculum, which is rather a different claim.
By "intelligence," are you referring to IQ?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That's severe dyslexia. Occasionally typing "I have starved" when what you mean is "I have strived" is not severe dyslexia.
It is a little more serious than you are making out, though, because what you ought to intend to write is "I have striven". Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That's severe dyslexia. Occasionally typing "I have starved" when what you mean is "I have strived" is not severe dyslexia.
It is a little more serious than you are making out, though, because what you ought to intend to write is "I have striven".
Hey, let's not turn this into a passing confest over why's got the worsted dyslexia.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: (I said that all children with average or above average intellegence, even if they had learning disabilities, could learn my curriculum, which is rather a different claim.)
Do you not see how this assumption leaves absolutely NO room for differing severities of learning disorders?
-pH
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
I got the impression those with more severe learning disorders are meant to go to a separate school under Pelegius's plan.
However, perhaps I've misunderstood?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Not at all, ladyday, although it would pain me to have to send people to a different school based on dyslexia. There are factors which could make dyslexia harder to combat, a poor family situation, or a combination of dyslexia and another disorder or, worst of all, dyslexia and an insufficently high I.Q. (although, given the nature of most I.Q. tests, it is difficult to test the I.Q. of a dyslexic person.) An insufficently high I.Q. to combat dyslexia may not, on consideration, be below average on a general scale, but may also include some students with I.Q.s in the bottom section of average.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"By "intelligence," are you referring to IQ?" In theory, yes. I.Q. as an abstract concept seems valid, but I.Q. tests are not very reliable.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There is a great analogy I'm going to copy down from an essay on "Education beyond Schooling," by Mortimer Adler.
quote:I admit that children are containers of different sizes. They do not all have the same capacity. But the question is not one of the amount of education to be given each child, for no child can receive more than his capacity permits. The question is the kind of education to be given each child, according to his capacity.
Let me illustrate this with a simple metaphor. Let the child of low intelligence and weak natural endowment be represented by a pint container, and the child of extremely high endowments and intelligence, by a gallon container. According to the democratic concept of education, you must put into the pint container whatever kind of liquid you put into the gallon container, even though only one pint can go here and a gallon there. It will not do to put cream into the gallon container and, say, water--dirty water, at that-- into the pint container. Vocation education is the dirty water we are now pouring into our pint containers. Liberal education is the cream we are giving the few.
I think that schoolteachers, parents, and the country in general, have been misled on this point because the problem is so difficult to solve. The teachers took the wrong turn, though the easier one, when they were first faced with the problem at the beginning of the [20]century. They discoveredd that they did not know how to put cream into the pint container. Instead of doing what was required of them--taking the time to face and solve this very difficult problem of finding pedagogical techniques, methods, or means for putting cream into every container, large or small-- they backed away, and accepted vocational training for the great majority of children as much the easier thing to do. This profound mistake we must now correct. We must give liberal training, training in the liberal arts, to all the children who are going to inherit the rights of citizenship and the leisure time of free men in their adult years.
This essay, and I believe all of the essays in "Reforming Education: The opening of the American Mind" is outstanding in its insight.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are factors which could make dyslexia harder to combat, a poor family situation, or a combination of dyslexia and another disorder or, worst of all, dyslexia and an insufficently high I.Q.
Pel, let me refer you again to my friend, who is incapable of reading except in controlled environments. He's quite bright, but does not enjoy reading in the least as a consequence and usually winds up listening to audio books. What room is there for him in the curriculum you've created?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Irami-
I don't think that I can agree with the author on his basic premise that vocational education is 'dirty water' and a liberal arts education is 'cream.' I often see people asserting that being well educated in a trade is inferior to someone with a PhD in humanities. I completely reject this. I think that an electrician contributes just as much to society and get as much personal satisfaction out of their job as the person who devotes their career to writing academic papers on post Hellenstic philosophy.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
To be fair, I don't think he's denigrating electricians and plumbers, but specifically trade school. In other words, get your liberal arts high school diploma, and then learn your trade through on the job training or whatever. The premise being that a liberal arts high school education makes you capable of learning whatever you need to learn when you need to learn it, whereas if we spend your high school years teaching you woodworking, woodworking is all you'll ever know how to do, and some day a machine will make you obsolete there.
It's an interesting question, and by no means an easy one. It's the same debate as raged between Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois, and a hundred years later we're still not sure who was right.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Tom, unless I'm misunderstood Pelegius would send your friend to a separate school.
It would pain him though.
Again Pelegius, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not -completely- sure if you were saying 'Not at all' to my initial statement or to my question :X.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The kicker is that my friend has an IQ of 160. He's not the most brilliant person I've ever met, but I'm rather disturbed by the thought that he's "insufficiently" intelligent.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Bao,
In addition to what Icarus said, Adler's worry about trade school stems from the last paragraph.
quote:We must give liberal training, training in the liberal arts, to all the children who are going to inherit the rights of citizenship and the leisure time of free men in their adult years.
If we didn't live in a democracy, and only a certain class of people were expected to engage in public, non-economic business, then trade school would be an adequate alternative to a liberal arts education.
The problem, in Adler's view, is Universal sufferage, and that every person, the electrician included, is supposed to be considered a full person, and treated accordingly. Furthermore, earlier he argues that modern industrialized democracies actually permit every person the requisite amount of leisure time to be full citizens. Voters in Athens and the voters in early America weren't workers. They were landed gentry or gentleman farmers, which meant that they had the sufficient leisure time to be educated in the ways and means of politics and the human condition, such that they were able to fitfully execute their duties as free citizens. The issue is that now that we seriously expect all people to fitfully execute the duties of free citizens, we have to give all people the quality of education that was previously reserved for the leisure class.
Adler believes that what is at risk is the US, and everything thing the US has the ability to touch, because a democracy made up of people who aren't educated in the liberal arts will be the sport of demoguages or Hitlers, prey to unreasonable fears and inculcated dogma.
[ July 30, 2006, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hey Irami, I understand better where you are coming from now compared to that other thread where I got so frustrated with you. I don't entirely agree, (though I'm still working on articulating my disagreement) but what you were saying then now makes more sense.
I suspect that my perspective has a little bit to do with the idea of Dignity and Nobility In Simple Tasks Done Well. But I understand what you are saying as far as how the current system leads to a less informed voting popluace. I guess what bothers me is that in your system "less informed/educated voter" seems to be a demeaning classification as to the value of a human. And the value of a human is entirely independent of how informed their vote is.
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
But does it contradict "the idea of Dignity and Nobility In Simple Tasks Done Well"? If so, how?
In fact, does he actually say that a less educated voter is a less valuable human being? It seems to me that all he is saying is that a purpose of schooling is to prepare one for citizenship.
I don't know if that's true or not; it would make an interesting discussion. But it seems like he is saying one thing and people are responding by contradicting something else entirely.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Are you talking about secondary school here? If so, I misunderstood, I apologize. I agree with a general education in high school of the arts, literature, science, mathematics, etc. I'm not advocating that we turn them into trade schools.
I guess my question then is at what point is it ok to start giving people this 'dirty water?'
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I really liked the setup at my high school. For half the day, you were required to do math, english, science, etc. For the other half, you could choose to take classes in a trade. People who learned a trade still had the necessary courses to attend a college. Since you had to mantain a certain GPA to continue attending the trade school, it helped motivate these kids to behave and strive in the courses they didn't like.
Also, someone said that teachers get good benefits. The teacher's unions in my area did a survey and found they had the worst benefits in our city, including looking at other state employees. Most teachers did not have their children covered due to the ridiculously high costs. Private insurance for my husband and I was only maybe a hundred bucks more
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Are you talking about secondary school here? " We don't know what were talking about here. To wit, this thread was about secondary school, but my previous thread on middle schools became woven in and I think that, some where along the way, we added in all levels of education, for good measure. Thus, we are confused on what we are talking about. Or, at least I thing that we are confused.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Also, someone said that teachers get good benefits. The teacher's unions in my area did a survey and found they had the worst benefits in our city, including looking at other state employees.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. My best friend who is a school teacher has a husband who is a firefighter, and the firefighter's benefits are cheaper for the same insurance coverage (Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical and dental). The teachers do, however, have a pretty good retirement plan.
That's just something that varies from place to place.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"The kicker is that my friend has an IQ of 160. He's not the most brilliant person I've ever met, but I'm rather disturbed by the thought that he's "insufficiently" intelligent." I would be interested to know how the calculated that score, as most standard I.Q. tests are inaccurate for dyslexics (there might be ones that work, I don't know.)
Your friend;s problem may be that his dyslexia was not treated early enough, i.e. he was put through "normal" reading classes in the first grade or even later. Dyslexia, in my experience, must be found and treated while still very young, at the normal age when children start to learn. But, it can be substantially treated. My cousin did not receive treatment until middle school, by then too late to make a substantial difference. I began learning from specialists in the first grade, and was able to read at or above the level of my peers by third grade, and my dyslexia is supposedly quite severe.
I being general here because I do not know your friend, nor am I an expert in this field, although God knows I have seen enough of them. I speak from experience and observation, not formal training.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Forgive me if I'm ignorant on all this... It's been a while since I took one, but I don't recall any reading involved in the IQ test I took a long time ago. If there's no reading, how can it inpact dyslexics?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Nighthawk, most I.Q. tests focus heavily on visual patterns, which also cause problems for dyslexic people, sometimes more so than a reading-based test would.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"The goal here is not universal agreement." The goal here, and elsewhere is universal agreement upon universal truth. I see it as my responsibility to defend my thesis as vigorously as possible, and the responsibility of others to defend their theses with equal vigour, until the time comes when some truth is found in the synthesis, and then we begin again, debating which truth was found from the same data. While we shall doubtless never reach either universal agreement or universal truth, those are very much our goals. I am not, by nature a relativist in the strictest since of the term. Two opposed doctrines cannot both be totally true in any situation, although they can be equally true and equally false.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
People should rely much less on IQ testing because your intelligence should not need to be crushed or affirmed by a little three (or two) digit number.
quote:The goal here, and elsewhere, is universal agreement upon universal truth... those are very much our goals.
But today there is no day or night Today there is no dark or light. Today there is no black or white, Only shades of gray.
Light is the left hand of darkness and darkness the right hand of light Two are one, life and death, lying together like lovers in kemmer, like hands joined together, like the end of the way. -Tormer's Lay, in the Left Hand of Darkness by Urusula LeGuin.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Today there is no black or white, Only shades of gray."
How did grey come about?
Truth, I am certain is constant. However, I am equaly certain that there is an absolute truth for each situation, rather than one absolute truth. These truths form a a whole but still remain quite diverse. Which is just one of the reasons truth is so hard to find, much less understand.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
1. When I quote fake British sixties bands, it probably means I'm not expecting a deep philosophical reply. 2. Since you gave one, I feel obligated to give one in reply
I am of the opinion that truths, such as they are, are few, far between, and impossible to track down.
To me, the world isn't just grey, it's like grey-on-grey-on-grey-on-grey. Each supposedly simple rule is followable only to a certain point, where you discover there's another layer underneath, and another layer underneath that- and so on. It's like one of those Escher prints, only infinitely more complicated, layer upon layer, inverted, reversed, reflected and spiralling away forever. Staircases and walls going in all different directions.
In this world of mine, the further you get down into the way the world works, the more likely to are track down a truth. You get so many greys lying on top of one another that you find a tiny little nugget of truth tucked into a corner on the underside of one of upsidedown, back-to-front Escher staircase.
To me, all but this pinpoint nugget- if that- of the world is only shades of grey.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
quote: To me, the world isn't just grey, it's like grey-on-grey-on-grey-on-grey. Each supposedly simple rule is followable only to a certain point, where you discover there's another layer underneath, and another layer underneath that- and so on. It's like one of those Escher prints, only infinitely more complicated, layer upon layer, inverted, reversed, reflected and spiralling away forever. Staircases and walls going in all different directions.
Douptless. If truth were easy to find, would we have not already found it? Much exists which we do not understand perfectly and are nowwhere near being able to understand perfectly. But we can move closer. Even as we move away from truth, we move closer as we provide, by example, an illustration of what truth is not.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hm. You appear to be sliding past what I'm trying to say.
I guess to put it into a ridiculously simple metaphor, I'm more interested in the haystack than the needle. I think so many people are searching for the needle that they're tossing the haystack aside.
[ August 20, 2006, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
We apreciate most what we take apart, dare I say, deconstruct (cringes inwardly.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Nighthawk, most I.Q. tests focus heavily on visual patterns, which also cause problems for dyslexic people, sometimes more so than a reading-based test would.
Well, you know, IQ tests are designed to measure, among other things, skill at figuring out visual patterns. Now I'm not saying this is the be-all and end-all of intelligence, but if dyslexics do poorly at it, this does not in itself indicate a problem with the test; it indicates an area in which dyslexics do poorly.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
But I.Q. tests are usually interpreted as though they are meant to measure, you know, intelligence, rather than skill at particular things like figuring out visual patterns. So someone who is not (let's call it) "visually intelligent" (where "intelligent" means something like "skillful") might be treated appropriately by those who actually understand the test, but by everyone else they might be seen as unintelligent. I've explained to people that "J" on a Myers-Briggs personality indicator doesn't mean that the person is judgmental, any more than a "P" indicates that that person is especially perceptive (can perceive things others cannot). People take I.Q. to mean intelligence, and when part of the test is heavy on things that someone has a physical inability to do it doesn't mean that the person is stupid.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I think the idea that intelligence can be accurately measured, at least as of now, is faulty. I.Q. tests are actually pretty good at dividing people into rough categories of average, bellow average and above average intelligence, but not at making measurements much more precise than that. And, barring incidents of autism, it is generally possible to determine the rough intelligence of somebody by just talking to them about a variety of subjects. Neither "system," if the later one even deserves that title, is anywhere near perfect. Obsessions over the I.Q.s of Goethe or Einstein or George W. Bush strike me as absurd. What matters is that Goethe did many very intelligent thinks, Einstein did a few brilliant things (but also made a good number of fairly egregious mistakes, such as distrusting particle physics and even plate tectonics) and that George W. Bush has done, and especially said, many things which be considered sub-optimal in a world leader.
Of course, intelligence is not the only factor that creates meaningful contribution. The most intelligent postwar President was probably Jimmy Carter, certainly the most intelligent living former President, and yet it would be almost impossible to argue that he was a success as President, although the inability of the U.S. to function under a President both so intelligent and so moral may say as much about the U.S. and human nature as it does about Mr. Carter.
It is, however, all too common to undervalue the importance of intelligence, a trend which is especially common now and especially so in the U.S. as compared to the rest of the developed world. The greatest of leaders have been brilliant men: Cæsar, the great writer, orator and tactician; Charlamange a semiliterate who none the less had an inherent understanding of strategy and surrounded himself with the greatest thinkers of western Europe; Churchill, the self-educated writer and thinker whose oratory won him both a Nobel Prize and long-lasting remembrance, also dabbled in applied engineering and did more than dabble in painting.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It is, however, all too common to undervalue the importance of intelligence, a trend which is especially common now and especially so in the U.S. as compared to the rest of the developed world.
I think we tend to overemphasize intelligence and undervalue character.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:it is generally possible to determine the rough intelligence of somebody by just talking to them about a variety of subjects
...unless you're talking to them about something that they've never been taught before.
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"I think we tend to overemphasize intelligence and undervalue character."
I think we underemphasize both in favor a strange combination of charisma and comfortable mediocrity. The later is especially true, looking at George W. Bush, Jonathan Howard and Jacques Chirac, none of whom has charisma. M. Chirac is undeniably extremely intelligent and is not particularly depraved by political standards, yet cannot be said to be anything other than mediocre, largely because of his extremely apparent cynicism. Mr. Howard is a confusing man whose motives and intelligence I will not attempt to judge, but cannot be said to be anything above mediocre, although he may well prove to be less than mediocre. Mr. Bush desperately want character, but actually appears to lack strength of will. This may seem surprising in a President often thought willful, but his politics as both governor of Texas and President of the United States seem to owe much more to his chief aids than to him (the Bob Bullock-dominated Governor Bush was nothing like the President Bush dominated by neo-cons and Conservative Christians.)
Mr. Bush's top advisors are almost all very intelligent, there are no Dan Quyales in his cabinet, but, with the exception of the enigmatic Dr. Rice, who appears to actually think she is saving the world, they all lack character.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I don't know pH. You can kind of tell by their ability to pick up what you're saying and make sense of it, respond intelligently, and ask good questions. Even if they've never heard of what you choose to talk about before, the conversation can be telling.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What if they have no interest in the subject whatsoever?
-pH
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Then I'll be forced to conclude that the person is a moron.
Seriously though, then you can bring up a subject the person is interested in
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Strangely enough, I wound up back majoring in English which was my initial plan when I graduated high school almost twenty years ago. So sometimes we come full circle in life.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
).![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
.