<p>lol cowtipper, this sort of ridiculous argumentation is what you get when you dispute something like compulsory education. there ARE some things in our society that are good...maybe in need of improvement...but definitely good</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunantly, that would only increase the divide between rich and poor. One can improve their score with proper mental training - only the well-off can afford the time for such training.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, you're right about that. IQ can be improved through training (though with diminishing returns). I wish I could edit my old posts. But while IQ can be improved with training, can intelligence in general be improved by training? That is a different matter. It's impossible to quantify intelligence. I think the anecdotal evidence clearly establishes that people's personalities and intelligence relative to the norm are fairly consistent through the person's life - but that could be a product of self-fulfilling prophecies and expectations that come of that person.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The last paragraph in that link is a bit frightening. Teachers are being told to bore their students to get them used to it so that they won't lose their future unstimulating jobs?!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No model of society is perfect. All we can say is that it is conceivably possible that robots will replace those of lowest intelligence in the future, and then what will become of those of lowest intelligence?</p>
<p>The problem is that the less intelligent learn differently from the more intelligent. The other problem is that in order for society to be best served, not everyone is going to be paired to happiness. What then?</p>
<p>As several others have pointed out, what on earth are kids supposed to do if they aren't in school? The first poster suggested working for the family, but has he ever heard of child labor laws? By the time you can legally get a long-term, full-time job, (at least in FL), you can drop out of school. (Here you can drop out at 16, but can't have a license). </p>
<p>Since our generation is already obsessed with TV and video games, do we need to encourage it by saying "Hey, kid! Do you want to go to school?" It's almost laughable. What kid is going to say he'd rather be in school than at home doing something? Very few. Then you will have parents who force their kid to go to school, the kid complains and says the reason he's failing is because his parents are making him do something he doesn't want to do. The state gets involved, takes the parent away for doing what a parent is supposed to do: make decisions for what is best for their kid. This example is extreme, but the carzy law suits and parent cases going on makes it more plausible. </p>
<p>Who is watching these kids? Are we going to ask high schoolers to drop out and become full-time babysitters? Are we going to drift farther down the socialist spectrum to adding fulltime daycare for working parents' kids? That way they are "safe" while they are at work? That would basically change elementary school into a "lets make everyone feel good" "lets play games, forget about reading or writing" situation. </p>
<p>There are serious implications for this suggestion. </p>
<p>Overall, it completely disregards the fact that literacy and free education is a hallmark of a strong industrialized democracy. Maybe you don't like democracy or capitalism, but would you rather live somewhere in the "developing world" (to be politcally correct) where literacy is less than half the population? </p>
<p>Education is needed for progress, if you allow huge percentages of the population to opt out of education, society is hurt. As someone else said, the people who push on and get an education pay for those who didn't go to school and have to rely on welfare. </p>
<p>It also is a way for social mobility, whereas a parent who feels their child should stay at home will be forced to give up any chance for a future. </p>
<p>To say that "biologically" you can't learn more is sad, honestly. I think that should the de-personalization of the world, "Sorry, we aren't gonig to even give you a chance to improve yourself, you're too stupid." Then, the student doesn't have school as a path, and now must work. Ok, you just ruined any self-esteem he/she ever had, do you rally think that's gonig to make them MORE productive in the workforce? I doubt it. Additionally, that just treats students like they are animals that have no capacity to think, and worth nothing more. (Not that standardized tests don't do that already). </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I believe serious reform is needed in our education system. Just in my time in high school I've found many things I want to change and make better. I believe that elementary, middle school, and some of high school education should be reformed, but what is taught should be similar. High school needs to engage students and allow them to find their passion, to find what it is they want to do. This doesn't need to be done the first year, like the state of Florida is making it (somewhat). Instead, they should be CHALLENGED and encouraged to do what they love and what they are best at. But to reach this level, they need to be prepared before, which is difficult. Finally, tons of teachers need to get fired. Then teachers who actually (warning, radical thought coming) WANT to teach and who actually LOVE kids should be hired. I can't count the number of teachers at our school, who sit at their desk and say "Do problems 2-40 even, if you have any questions ask." In an ALgebra I class, where the students aren't selfstarters, no wonder this way of teaching that is extremely prevalent, discourages kids and makes them not want to learn. </p>
<p>That really is the root of the problem: Fueling the love of learning. </p>
<p>If we continue to miss that goal, then I truly feel the US will greatly decline in its influence and fail to produce anyone capable of thinking for him/herself. Not to mention the lack of progress that will occur. </p>
<p>Sorry for the disseration =P.</p>
<p>Hey I'd think it be great if we made slaves out of prisoners or subject them to lifelong community service.. They we can build roads for cheapo. Sorry random thought.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since our generation is already obsessed with TV and video games, do we need to encourage it by saying "Hey, kid! Do you want to go to school?" It's almost laughable. What kid is going to say he'd rather be in school than at home doing something? Very few. Then you will have parents who force their kid to go to school, the kid complains and says the reason he's failing is because his parents are making him do something he doesn't want to do. The state gets involved, takes the parent away for doing what a parent is supposed to do: make decisions for what is best for their kid. This example is extreme, but the carzy law suits and parent cases going on makes it more plausible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're implying that students who stay home are going to watch more TV and play more video games. Perhaps this will become somewhat more true. But you can't predict that they're going to spend all of their time on such activities. Standardized tests [and not intelligence ones!] should still measure their academic progress. Perhaps this would work better than the system as is, even if it won't be perfect. Most students know that they have to go to work by some time and day. </p>
<p>But wait. I have an idea. To ensure that this does not happen, students could go to institutions with rooms by means of which they can study whatever they want. We don't know if this would work better than if students elect to be able to stay home.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Education is needed for progress, if you allow huge percentages of the population to opt out of education, society is hurt. As someone else said, the people who push on and get an education pay for those who didn't go to school and have to rely on welfare.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're implying that the educational system as is is a pre-requisite to careers. But not all careers require the same education as others. Few skills in middle and high schools are actually used for careers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Overall, it completely disregards the fact that literacy and free education is a hallmark of a strong industrialized democracy. Maybe you don't like democracy or capitalism, but would you rather live somewhere in the "developing world" (to be politcally correct) where literacy is less than half the population?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But middle schools and high schools generally do little to add to literacy. Most students are already literate by elementary school.</p>
<p>Moreover, many people do not take advantage of democracy anyways. Why? Lack of intelligence. Lack of openness to new experience. It's not their fault that they're that way biologically. In many cases at least [I'm not going to take advantage of either, but that's because I'm a cynical nihilist. As far as I can tell, cynical nihilists are rare outside of online forums]. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It also is a way for social mobility, whereas a parent who feels their child should stay at home will be forced to give up any chance for a future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Social mobility is still possible if the students self-study, even more so than the current system [through which students are forced to go through the same curriculum as their peers, who are usually of low SES]. Peer reinforcement and peer interaction clearly influence child behavior and attitudes, as evidenced in "The Nurture Assumption." In our society, schooling and tracking does not do a good job of social mobility. The Internet may be the best means of social mobility. The Internet can revolutionize homeschooling and self-studying. Develop online forums for different subjects. Develop online tests that students can take. There is no need for students to go to school.</p>
<p>When students go to school, how is their progress measured? Standardized tests and grades. When students stay at home, how is their progress measured? Standardized tests and possibly grades (in the case of distance education). But other than that, there are no evaluative mechanisms for checking student progress that schools can provide.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>There is a logical fallacy that you're providing. The lack of imagination fallacy, so to speak. It's phrased as this, there aren't any other common ways of meeting the goal, so we must work within such ways to meet the goal. But there is another way to meet the goal - and that's self-study. It's not not a well-known one, because people are psychologically dependent on the notion that they need a teacher to teach them.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope your education hasn't relied on only standardized tests. I know you said grades, but it seems like you are adding a negative connotation to them. Anyway, since 10th grade (at least after we got done with FCAT prep, FL's standardized test, awful thing), I've been forced to critically think and write, not just answer a MC question. I think our education system is failing to produce people who think in favor of people who guess well on MC tests. For example, I am in AP World History as one of only 4 seniors, with 15 sophmores. They are not ready for this class. They can't write or think for themselves and can't analyze anything the teacher hasn't told them. I would say these students are bright and smart, but they have been unchallenged before and now that they are asked to work on a hgiher level, they fail. We need citizens who can critically think, and I know that is a goal that will, in reality, not be reached. </p>
<p>To address your other idea. I am a huge self-starter, I do my own research online and in books I buy in subjects I enjoy, I do AP's my school doesn't offer, etc etc. I truly love to learn, I love knowledge and theory. But expecting an average student to self study what he/she desires is perhaps as unrealistic as me wanting to have a public that can critically think. Even though I am self-motivated, I find it hard to take time to read my Comparative Politics textbook that I should be studying for the AP exam. Don't get my wrong, I love government and politics, but when you don't have someone holding you accountable, chances are you won't do it. </p>
<p>Sure, I could have read my books for AP Lit and learned to write well without a teacher. But do I wish I self-studied? Not for a day, I would never take back the past two years with my amazing teacher, despite how hard her class is. She has really influenced my life. Sure, I could have learned calculus on my own, I love math and have been good at it for all my life. But do Iwish I self-studied? Never, I love my teacher and he has inspired me and given me a passion for soemthing that I'd always been good at, but never liked. He radically changed my perspective and now I'm thinking of minoring in math (major in poli-sci), but if you told me that two years ago I would have died laughing. Teachers have the opportunity to radically change and encourage students. I know there are crappy ones who don't do anything, but in my experience, the ones who love to teach, are absolutely amazing and transfer tht love of learning onto their students. If you've never had a teacher like that, then I feel bad for you. You've really missed out. </p>
<p>That's where the articles you posted missed, they talked about teachers making a difference in grades by motivating the underachiever who can do more. I've always been an overachiever, I would have succeeded no matter what course of action I took, but these teachers gave me something more: they gave me a passion for subjects I used to not care about, they transformed something I was "good" at, into something I enjoyed and looked forward to. </p>
<p>THOSE are the teachers we need, people who motivate their students and make a difference. Maybe that will be me one day =). </p>
<hr>
<p>On another note, when I was in 10th grade, right after the furry of the FCAT haha, I wrote an essay on education when I didn't have to take a precalc final. Overall, I came to the conclusion that education in America is going the way the concept of communism tried to do economically. In its most basic form, ignoring political implications etc, communism rests on the belief that all men should have equal wealth and money. In the same way, I feel that education is trying to make everyone equal. Understand, this was after my parents had a conference with my brother's teachers where they said "We don't care if he's not learning, we just care that he passes the FCAT." To my parents face! While many peopel ahve not had such a direct confrontation by a teacher, I would vernture to say that the current system encourages teaching for a test, a mediocre test at that, and wastes valuable class time. On the whole, they are trying to raise the lower percentile up to the mean, while not teaching the people in the higher parts. I spent 1/2 of English II Honors doing the most ridiculus tests known to man, I wans't learning about the English language or writers or poetry, I was learning how to write (literally) in the FCAT box, adding no creativity or interest or variety. </p>
<p>So I guess we sort fo agree, that we can't hold everyone to the same level. But, abolishing compulsory education is not the solution. </p>
<p>For starters, our generation needs to become parents who (shock) actualy care about their kids and want them to succeed, and not just that, but want them to succeed in what the best fit is for them. Not necessarily a lawyer, or doctor, or CEO, but what truly is best for them and what they want to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I sincerely hope your education hasn't relied on only standardized tests
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it has not. Standardized tests rescued me in 10th grade. But I learn far more through online forums and through my own self-education, rather than from school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
know you said grades, but it seems like you are adding a negative connotation to them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course there's a negative connotation associated with grades => it's impossible to compare the grades between two people from different schools, especially with the advent of grade inflation. </p>
<p>
[quote]
with 15 sophmores. They are not ready for this class. They can't write or think for themselves and can't analyze anything the teacher hasn't told them. I would say these students are bright and smart, but they have been unchallenged before and now that they are asked to work on a hgiher level, they fail. We need citizens who can critically think, and I know that is a goal that will, in reality, not be reached.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not particularly surprising that they can't think by themselves. I think that the ability to think by oneself is partially genetic and partially environmental. How do you motivate someone to think for themselves? It's not through school that they do it. Thinking for oneself is a skill that must be developed over years, like many other ways of learning. It must be developed through research, writing, debating, and analyzing one's own thoughts. How often do students have the opportunity to think for themselves? Very rarely. </p>
<p>The other issue is this - can you really teach someone to think for oneself? It's difficult. Knowledge is a pre-requisite for it, but for those consistently used to thinking a certain way, they may become resistant to thinking for oneself. One of the problems is the lack of rigorous notation that people use. "Thinking for oneself" and "questioning your belief systems" do sound vague and abstract. This is where logic is important.</p>
<p>I think the best media for teaching one to think for oneself is by means of online forums. I have never seen a class taught out of an online forum - but it would be very interesting for one to be done. A skilled instructor who develops the skill for teaching people on online forums can give prompts to the students, who then reply to the prompts on online forums. The instructor then criticizes the students by means of the online forum. He asks them what axioms they accept, and how they go from axioms to conclusions. He also looks at the references they use, and notes where the student could have missed argument on the website the student derives references from, and on the student's selection of references. Students who comment on the work of other students are rewarded, and students can also teach each other. Once a person reaches the level by means of which he can think critically, he can learn virtually everything by himself, given the limits of his intelligence.</p>
<p>With this all said, learning is best done when all of the senses are engaged, which is a good argument against depersonalizing learning to online forums. But when expenses are considered, no one can achieve an ideal mode of learning. </p>
<h1>Recently, I wrote this in an e-mail to someone. It's a model of how one learns and thinks critically:</h1>
<p>Anyways, I just took a Poincare walk and wrote this...</p>
<p>A researcher has several choices:</p>
<p>1) to write/produce
2) to read
3) to take a "Poincare walk"
4) to experiment/play around [mostly for the experimenters/modelers] </p>
<p>In any case, I have coined the new word "Poincare walk" when I decide to do something that requires absolutely no focus/mental activity for a while, in hopes of changing my mental state sufficiently enough that I may focus on nonlinear thoughts that may lead to some sort of insight. It is of course, named after Poincare's infamous insight-producing walks.</p>
<p>Obviously, each reinforces each other. One must learn by reading and by producing output of one's own. The researcher who hopes to integrate several fields together must read far more than the researcher focused on a single problem. That researcher, consequently, must devote more of his time to reading, and less to something else. Meanwhile, writing/producing is how the researcher gets his word out. The speed of it is determined by (a) the number of elements in the researcher's active memory, and the "access speed" from long-term memory to active memory of the researcher (as well as various emotional factors).</p>
<p>So what is the point? I think that I'm overly focused on (2) - reading at the moment. Education mostly consists of (2), although the most successful education is arguably an ideal mix of (2) and (1). In any case, my desire is somehow to proceed to (1), soon, before I hit the Galois wall.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>Breaking this post into 2, typing up next response</p>
<p>
[quote]
But expecting an average student to self study what he/she desires is perhaps as unrealistic as me wanting to have a public that can critically think. Even though I am self-motivated, I find it hard to take time to read my Comparative Politics textbook that I should be studying for the AP exam. Don't get my wrong, I love government and politics, but when you don't have someone holding you accountable, chances are you won't do it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now, it is unrealistic, perhaps. Those who are less able are also less likely to pursue resources of one's own. If you say, here's a list of research articles, go out and write a summary on them, to a number of students, many of them will not have the initial activation energy needed to start on the project. They need the additional stimuli (that could provide enough energy to exceed the activation energy needed to start on a task) that comes from the interaction with another person to actually start on the project. </p>
<p>The more stimuli, the more responsive a person is. Online lectures and podcasting do provide additional stimuli, but for most people, that stimuli may not be sufficient enough to motivate them to actually work.</p>
<h1>One of the issues comes with societal attitudes. People are psychologically dependent on relinquishing the responsibility of their learning to the institution (which is exacerbated by the fact that the institution implicitly breaks up the sphere of human interaction into two spheres: one of learning (schools), and one of not-learning (the rest of the world). The question is - if societal values change, are they capable of putting responsibility into their own learning? It's hard to say - certainly, 200 years ago, I would have never anticipated the success of the Civil Rights movement, given how natural discrimination and xenophobia are. But at least we can't prevent ourselves from conceiving of such a possibility. </h1>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, I could have read my books for AP Lit and learned to write well without a teacher. But do I wish I self-studied? Not for a day, I would never take back the past two years with my amazing teacher, despite how hard her class is. She has really influenced my life. Sure, I could have learned calculus on my own, I love math and have been good at it for all my life. But do Iwish I self-studied? Never, I love my teacher and he has inspired me and given me a passion for soemthing that I'd always been good at, but never liked. He radically changed my perspective and now I'm thinking of minoring in math (major in poli-sci), but if you told me that two years ago I would have died laughing. Teachers have the opportunity to radically change and encourage students. I know there are crappy ones who don't do anything, but in my experience, the ones who love to teach, are absolutely amazing and transfer tht love of learning onto their students. If you've never had a teacher like that, then I feel bad for you. You've really missed out. </p>
<p>That's where the articles you posted missed, they talked about teachers making a difference in grades by motivating the underachiever who can do more. I've always been an overachiever, I would have succeeded no matter what course of action I took, but these teachers gave me something more: they gave me a passion for subjects I used to not care about, they transformed something I was "good" at, into something I enjoyed and looked forward to. </p>
<p>THOSE are the teachers we need, people who motivate their students and make a difference. Maybe that will be me one day =).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, one cannot deny the influence of a great teacher. Some people are more receptive to great teachers than others. But, do you need to go to school to meet a great teacher? Think of all of the cases of those who self-studied in the past. One can call G.H. Hardy a great mathematician and a great teacher. He didn't need to teach classes to Ramanujan in order for Ramanujan's talent to be recognized. He merely needed some one-to-one interaction with that student.</p>
<p>There is no need for lectures in order to truly appreciate someone's teaching. A teacher can be even more realized if he is capable of 1-1 interaction with the student, and lectures take time away from that. As for those who would not benefit as much from such a teacher - at least they can watch the videos of the teacher. Will they be motivated? There are ways to motivate such students without the need for lectures. In fact, lectures take time away from time that the teacher could keep track on the student's progress.</p>
<p>Let's quote Ivan Illich now: Text @ <a href="http://reactor-core.org/deschooling.html#chapter6%5B/url%5D">http://reactor-core.org/deschooling.html#chapter6</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
What prevents their frustration from shaping new institutions is a lack not only of imagination but frequently also of appropriate language and of enlightened self-interest. They cannot visualize either a deschooled society or educational institutions in a society which has disestablished school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The planning of new educational institutions ought not to begin with the administrative goals of a principal or president, or with the teaching goals of a professional educator, or with the learning goals of any hypothetical class of people. It must not start with the question, "What should someone learn?" but with the question, "What kinds of things and people might learners want to be in contact with in order to learn?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Someone who wants to learn knows that he needs both information and critical response to its use from somebody else. Information can be stored in things and in persons. In a good educational system access to things ought to be available at the sole bidding of the learner, while access to informants requires, in addition, others' consent. Criticism can also come from two directions: from peers or from elders, that is, from fellow learners whose immediate interests match mine, or from those who will grant me a share in their superior experience. Peers can be colleagues with whom to raise a question, companions for playful and enjoyable (or arduous) reading or walking, challengers at any type of game. Elders can be consultants on which skill to learn, which method to use, what company to seek at a given moment. They can be guides to the right questions to be raised among peers and to the deficiency of the answers they arrive at. Most of these resources are plentiful. But they are neither conventionally perceived as educational resources, nor is access to them for learning purposes easy, especially for the poor. We must conceive of new relational structures which are deliberately set up to facilitate access to these resources for the use of anybody who is motivated to seek them for his education. Administrative, technological, and especially legal arrangements are required to set up such web-like structures.</p>
<p>Educational resources are usually labeled according to educators' curricular goals. I propose to do the contrary, to label four different approaches which enable the student to gain access to any educational resource which may help him to define and achieve his own goals:</p>
<p>Reference Services to Educational Objects-which facilitate access to things or processes used for formal learning. Some of these things can be reserved for this purpose, stored in libraries, rental agencies, laboratories, and showrooms like museums and theaters; others can be in daily use in factories, airports, or on farms, but made available to students as apprentices or on off hours.
Skill Exchanges — which permit persons to list their skills, the conditions under which they are willing to serve as models for others who want to learn these skills, and the addresses at which they can be reached.
Peer-Matching — a communications network which permits persons to describe the learning activity in which they wish to engage, in the hope of finding a partner for the inquiry.
Reference Services to Educators-at-Large — who can be listed in a directory giving the addresses and self-descriptions of professionals, paraprofessionals, and free-lancers, along with conditions of access to their services. Such educators, as we will see, could be chosen by polling or consulting their former clients.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
On another note, when I was in 10th grade, right after the furry of the FCAT haha, I wrote an essay on education when I didn't have to take a precalc final. Overall, I came to the conclusion that education in America is going the way the concept of communism tried to do economically. In its most basic form, ignoring political implications etc, communism rests on the belief that all men should have equal wealth and money. In the same way, I feel that education is trying to make everyone equal. Understand, this was after my parents had a conference with my brother's teachers where they said "We don't care if he's not learning, we just care that he passes the FCAT." To my parents face! While many peopel ahve not had such a direct confrontation by a teacher, I would vernture to say that the current system encourages teaching for a test, a mediocre test at that, and wastes valuable class time. On the whole, they are trying to raise the lower percentile up to the mean, while not teaching the people in the higher parts. I spent 1/2 of English II Honors doing the most ridiculus tests known to man, I wans't learning about the English language or writers or poetry, I was learning how to write (literally) in the FCAT box, adding no creativity or interest or variety. </p>
<p>So I guess we sort fo agree, that we can't hold everyone to the same level. But, abolishing compulsory education is not the solution. </p>
<p>For starters, our generation needs to become parents who (shock) actualy care about their kids and want them to succeed, and not just that, but want them to succeed in what the best fit is for them. Not necessarily a lawyer, or doctor, or CEO, but what truly is best for them and what they want to do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, this vision is idealistic. It's a wonderful idea, apart from the intrinsic empirical impossibilites and theoretical fallacies. </p>
<p>However, education is currently acting as a sorting mechanism, rather than as an equalizer. Take the example of tracking. There's an interesting book on the phenomena, "Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality". There is one clear conclusion from the book: that by the mechanism of tracking, and by the socialization process that goes within each of the tracks: higher level, middle level,and lower level, different expectations are made of students, and they are expected to be held to the same standards within each track. Not to mention errors in the tracking process [I was one of those, I was put in the middle track, and I was encouraged to "go out and have fun" when I finished my work. Fortunately, I had access to online forums, which only exposed me to new ideas and values]. </p>
<p>The fact that one has been tracked becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is a solution to this. Unschooling, once again. Training may be necessary, eventually, for many professions. But tracking students as early as elementary school often results in self-fulfilling prophecies that go on. </p>
<p>People should only be held to different standards once they have had the chance to realize their potential. They can do this by taking the tests of their choice, that they studied for. It's possible to slack off in such a system, but slacking is rampant in the public school institutions as well. </p>
<p>Here are some very interesting articles:</p>
<p>How did I get out of the tracking process, then?</p>
<p>I learned of CTY from online forums. And they were Internet gaming forums. From <a href="http://www.aok.heavengames.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.aok.heavengames.com</a>, I met someone who went to the International Chemistry Olympiad, I met numerous people who scored in the 1200s and 1300s as 7th graders, I saw the chance to see numerous debates from people older than me, debates you would never see in a middle school.</p>
<p>I guess now would be an appropriate time to mention I went to a private school for elementary-middle school. My brother went to public for a year of middle and we both go to public school for high school. Therefore this "tracking" was not very prevalent at my school as it seems to have been at yours and many others. We had one standardized test at the end of the year, we might go over a few practice problems a week before, but on the whole that was it. I consistently scored in the 97-99%. I certainly felt the teachers were more effective teaching the course than whatever was on the test. </p>
<p>Your ideas are interesting. But you assume that people learn like you do. I love lectures, actually, if the teacher is engaging and interesting. Actually, the teachers I've liked best lectured, and after 12 years of school they have been my favorites and the ones I've felt have prepared me most for the future. Lectures don't have to be boring, they shouldn't be. They don't have to detract from student-teacher interaction, they should encourage it. It should include questions posed to the students, debates, serious discussion. I learn very well in this manner, as long as the teacher is capable and prepared. Lecturing does not include my AP US History teacher who got the text book and read out of it. </p>
<p>I think that forums are great for encouraging discussion and challenging ideas, but I don't think they should be the basis of education. </p>
<p>Have you ever heard of learning styles? The fact is, people learn in different ways. I have to hand write things down and read them from a book to really udnerstand and remember something. I can write a song on my online blog and not remember half the words the next day, but if I handwrite the same song, I would remember it far longer. Likewise, it is easier for me to recall, remember, and cite information I read from a book (down to the page and position on the page), but it's much harder for me to do so from soemthing I read online. Thus, for me, learning online is really not best for me. I can't learn that way. Similarly, my brother is an auditory learner, he can listen and remember everything you said in a lecture without writing it down. Maybe an online teacher who is talking would work for him. </p>
<p>I hope you get the general idea. I have to go, I'll continue our discussion later =). </p>
<p>Have you ever been on a debate team?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But you assume that people learn like you do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lectures also assume that people learn the same way and at the same pace. One problem is that you can't rewind a lecture, whereas you can rewind a video-taped lecture. So what I'm in favor of, essentially, is a national system of video-taping lectures to distribute to everyone. Teacher time can then be freed up to answer student questions (and on online forums).</p>
<p>One of the problems, of course, is that some people are more inclined to ask questions than others. This is a problem in the classroom, too, so my proposition doesn't address many more problems. The primary issue, though, is that Internet browsers tend to be abstract, and more intimidating to the less intelligent. Another issue is that the less intelligent (and less open) are less likely to independently pursue information than the more intelligent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that forums are great for encouraging discussion and challenging ideas, but I don't think they should be the basis of education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Though your opinions are influenced by your upbringing, so they are not particularly rigorous. We don't have much empirical evidence to compare between both methods of learning. One problem, of course, is that correlation does not imply causation. This problem is often made when students are paired up with associated schools in national awards, implying that the school was responsible for their awards (when in reality, it was more of the student's personality, and the environment that the personality made an imprint on). </p>
<p>Most people have narrow conceptions of how one is able to learn. They haven't learned of the potential of forums used for the purposes of education - and dismiss it before it's investigated. Which is pitiful, because then research studies only compare between two ineffective programs - of course one ineffective program is going to be more effective than the other. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Have you ever heard of learning styles? The fact is, people learn in different ways. I have to hand write things down and read them from a book to really udnerstand and remember something. I can write a song on my online blog and not remember half the words the next day, but if I handwrite the same song, I would remember it far longer. Likewise, it is easier for me to recall, remember, and cite information I read from a book (down to the page and position on the page), but it's much harder for me to do so from something I read online. Thus, for me, learning online is really not best for me. I can't learn that way. Similarly, my brother is an auditory learner, he can listen and remember everything you said in a lecture without writing it down. Maybe an online teacher who is talking would work for him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha, yes, I actually do use "differences in learning styles" as one of the main forces behind my arguments (because even schools assume that people learn the same way). I know that I have a very different learning style than most others. </p>
<p>Another issue is that one's upbringing also influences one's learning style. A system under an authoritarian regime certainly can permanently change one's learning style. </p>
<p>I'm aware of research that indicates that students given sex education are less likely to enter teenage pregnancies than those who have not been given such education (although I doubt that the research is controlled). My point on this is that people didn't get the idea to look up the same things on Wikipedia. On the other hand, however, education can be presented in several ways. One way is normative, and another is descriptive. Normative education is often characterized by authoritarian regimes (though it's also the education used in giving advice), whereas descriptive education is more resemblant of academic ideals (pure, disinterested).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Have you ever been on a debate team?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I never debated in school. Do you think I debate well? I never had much experience in debating - though I did read a number of debates on online forums. I used to stick to debating animal rights and vegetarianism, but then I realized that some of my premises were different from those of others, so I realized the futility of such debating (as well as acknowledging the validity of the other side). </p>
<p>I think that most successful arguments end up in several ways (ideally). One is that both sides mutually realize that they have different premises and different values (often in the case that one side values human happiness and equality, whereas another values unmitigated progress). Another is when both sides acknowledge on the need of more empirical research to back their statements up. Both of our arguments have empirical evidence in support of them, but it's very difficult to do a control study between them. </p>
<p>I'm actually somewhat glad that I never joined a debate team, so I came to debating from a different perspective. I think philosophically, and one of my interests is epistemology - through which we examine the assumptions we make about our worlds in our model-making. Since it's very important that we have to make our assumptions clear, it's much easier to see where our arguments can go. Another is my strong respect for the scientific method. I usually am disappointed with most debates since they focus on narrow-minded approaches to political issues (the ones between Democrats and Republicans). Both sides are unimaginative in pursuing solutions to the problems inherent in education.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>On a side note, I once joined a Bush/Kerry debate (on an online forum), and I was trying to be pro-Kerry. And I felt horrible relying on all sorts of flawed assumptions - I found myself assuming positions that I didn't really have much evidence in - just to try to be consistent. And while such arguments were consistent, they would be overturned with empirical evidence (or further investigation into my assumptions). Since then I've grown largely apolitical.</p>
<p>And on yet another side note, video-taping lectures and then putting them directly online may not be the best thing. One can modify the lectures with in-between cut-scenes, visualizations, and in-lecture quizzes [the lecture pauses, and the user must type in an answer to an in-lecture question to ensure that the lecture continues, to ensure that he keeps up] within the video demonstration. I just thought of the idea - it has never been implemented, but I think that would be excellent [wow though, that idea does have a lot of potential]. Certainly, I've fallen asleep watching MIT OCW lectures. ;)</p>
<p>Certainly, to some degree, it has been implemented in the Mechanical Universe lectures of Caltech [<a href="http://www.learner.org%5D%5B/url">http://www.learner.org][/url</a>] but those merely mix in lectures with cut-scenes. A far better idea would be to follow my suggestion and to put in animation.</p>
<p>MIT also does research into interactive learning modules. I tried to get Supercharged, but they're not distributing it. >: (</p>
<p>Stanford EPGY does a lot of research into this. The problem is that research => methods is soo slow.</p>
<p>Wow, and here's an interesting analysis of increased choice (it can increase depression levels). Theoretically in an idealistic world, more choices = better. But this ignores (a) transaction costs and (b) opportunity costs.</p>
<p>==
Here's the abstract (must pay to view online):</p>
<p>The Tyranny of Choice; April 2004; Scientific American Magazine; by Barry Schwartz; 6 Page(s)</p>
<p>Americans today choose among more options in more parts of life than has ever been possible before. To an extent, the opportunity to choose enhances our lives. It is only logical to think that if some choice is good, more is better; people who care about having infinite options will benefit from them, and those who do not can always just ignore the 273 versions of cereal they have never tried. Yet recent research strongly suggests that, psychologically, this assumption is wrong. Although some choice is undoubtedly better than none, more is not always better than less.</p>
<p>This evidence is consistent with large-scale social trends. Assessments of well-being by various social scientists - among them, David G. Myers of Hope College and Robert E. Lane of Yale University - reveal that increased choice and increased affluence have, in fact, been accompanied by decreased well-being in the U.S. and most other affluent societies. As the gross domestic product more than doubled in the past 30 years, the proportion of the population describing itself as "very happy" declined by about 5 percent, or by some 14 million people. In addition, more of us than ever are clinically depressed. Of course, no one believes that a single factor explains decreased well-being, but a number of findings indicate that the explosion of choice plays an important role.</p>
<p>If education is so important to function as a citizen in our democracy, shall those who "fail" in high school be eligible to vote? Or should some kind of demonstration of educational achievement be a prerequite to vote?</p>
<p>every child is required by law to go to public school until age 16. that is totally separate from the right to vote. we don't enforce one law (in this case, compulsory education) by taking away another, random, utterly unrelated one like the right to vote. education is addressed in a completely different sphere.</p>
<p>Compulsory education and the right to vote are random and utterly unrelated? But according to Post #15
[quote]
Compulsory education is necessary in order to shape effective and thoughtful citizens. If you know nothing about the legal system, etc., you will not be able to participate in it as knowledgeably. It is dangerous to democracy to allow large groups of uneducated people to particpate.
[/quote]
</p>