<p>prepparent, he was asking whether Exeter's socratic system led kids to want to continue their education in a LAC. It was a valid question, pertaining to Exeter's style of teaching.</p>
<p>bigblue09 I was asking about the socratic method. Middlesex uses the socratic method, is harkness like the socratic method?</p>
<p>sorry, my fault, I misread/misinterpreted something</p>
<p>I think the socratic method is similar to the Harkness method in that they were both designed to create focused discussion among the students. In both of these methods, the teacher does not lecture, instead students express their thoughts and opinions. I'm not positive of the specific differences between the two methods of learning, but I do know that they put an emphasis on class discussions over lectures.</p>
<p>It's not quite the Socratic method, if I understand the Socratic method correctly. My understanding:
I associate it with law school, teacher calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered, then asks him a question. He continues questioning him or moves on to another student. The theory behind it is that students already have knowledge and answers to questions, they just need to know which questions to ask to find the answers. </p>
<p>It's a little different from Harkness. Harkness is definitely meant to be more of a discussion than a lecture, like the Socratic method, but the teacher involvement is slightly different. It's not so much, "answer these questions," but "let's expand on <em>blank</em>. Did you have opinions?" And then students leap in from there and duke it out. Sometimes teachers interject with relevant points or ask people to back up a point with the text, but they often sit there to just keep students on track, introduce new information and make sure nobody gets too aggressive. The method doesn't assume that you have the knowledge within you, but it assumes that you can pick up things from other students.
Does that answer any questions?</p>
<p>I used to be a fan of the Harkness method until I sat in on a biology class that was totally dominated by two girls. The teacher couldn't control them as they joked with each other and interrupted other students that tried to participate. I can only imagine what the other students thought. Can't imagine spending the whole year in a class like that. I am sure it is not representative but just shows you no way is perfect.</p>
<p>Part of the Harkness method is student responsibility and as such other members of the class had responsibility for making sure the class was effectively meeting. Much of what is learned in Harkness=lessons other than academics as one would expect in any classroom setting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I used to be a fan of the Harkness method until I sat in on a biology class that was totally dominated by two girls. The teacher couldn't control them as they joked with each other and interrupted other students that tried to participate. I can only imagine what the other students thought. Can't imagine spending the whole year in a class like that. I am sure it is not representative but just shows you no way is perfect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sounds to me like a failing on the part of the teacher in question - in which case the method of instruction (i.e. traditional, Harkness, etc.) is a moot point. </p>
<p>As I alluded to earlier, the Harkness method can be a very powerful learning tool, but just like any other learning tool, its only as good / useful as the one leading it - or are you suggesting that traditional classrooms never experience disruptions from unruly students?</p>
<p>hmm, my d tells me that there is no lecture per se, rather discussion by students with the teacher sort of a facilitator. Middlesex refers to this as the socratic method. It sure sounds similar to the harkness method, you can't hide and you must be prepared.</p>
<p>I have another ?, my d's first year (algebra II), they used a manual of some sort, this manual was some how conected to exeter. I was suprised that they did not use a textbook. This manual thingy was somehow tied to exeter.</p>
<p>Earlier I posted a comment on not liking the nature of this topic because the tone hasn't addressed what is right for the student's development as a person. </p>
<p>I will say that this discussion of teaching method is the best part of this topic and is worthwhile of further discussion. Teaching and learning methods are a big determining factor in where a student will develop the best.</p>
<p>That being said can I summ up the differences in what is being said about the Harkness versus the Socratic method?</p>
<p>Socratic Method - Teacher initiated discussion where the teacher asks the questions and selects the student who opines. Kind of like the old TV series (I am dating myself here) "Paper Chase". Participation is equalized between students by the teacher's selection of student.</p>
<p>Harkness Method - Teacher initiated discussion where the teacher asks the first question and then only intervenes to keep the discussion on track and to move onto further questions. Participation is equalized between students by the students themselves mostly.</p>
<p>Socratic Method Advantage - Teacher can get directly to the point of what s/he wants to come out of a discussion, leaving no holes in knowledge. Teacher can easily make sure certain students are picking up on certain ideas by selection of responders.</p>
<p>Harkness Method Advantage - Students get more ownership of discussion (higher motivation principal) by having greater control of the discussion. Students can more easily go beyond the concepts being taught by the teacher and relate other topics as they are ready to do so.</p>
<p>I know this is a bit simplistic, and there are disadvantages to each method over the other (which I will leave for others to discuss), but I think it is very valuable to students considering schools with the 2 methods to understand the differences.</p>
<p>goaliedad, I thank you</p>
<p>goaliedad, what about the science course work? It would seem that lecture base presentation would better. If not I guess I can see the Socratic method working by your description. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Everyone, we weigh in on a few schools. I find St. George's to be an interesting school, any thoughts? I'm not interested in matrics, rather the people, the ethos, etc. Any thoughts on Foxcroft or Chatham Hall?</p>
<p>I think either the Socratic or Harkness methods would work very well with Science. In many ways better because the students have to develop the problem themselves. The instructor probably would have to start with a question of whether something is true or not or a what would happen if type questioning. The discussion would then have to be steered through the principles to apply, etc.</p>
<p>Math would work in a similar fashion.</p>
<p>Any subject where a principle is proven or concept defended is a good candidate for either of those 2 methods, I would think.</p>
<p>I believe either of these 2 methods are good for practicing the application of any theory or knitting together multiple theories. They actively engage the student to consider the facts or ideas that they have been assigned to read about. </p>
<p>One subject I can think of that wouldn't work well with either of these methods are foreign languages.</p>
<p>goaliedad, thank you..........Hmm, the concept of this stlye (socratic and harkness) seems hard for me to grasp with the sciences. I do see you point with the languages. I'm trying to get my arms around the "mole" concept and these two methods.
By the way, I loved "paper chase".</p>
<p>Just to give you an idea about the Socratic Method. I had a Cost Accounting instructor in college who ran his classes with that method. We were learning costing theory. We read the material and he (like in Paper Chase) would call us by last name and ask pointed questions while steering us through real business problems. Exams were 90% essay. Unusual for an accounting class. Probably my favorite class.</p>
<p>goaliedad, a question to you or anybody else who may have an opinion.
I have heard from various sources that many of the top students at bs are non-boarders. Assuming this is true, could it be that living at home may create a more stable envirement versus being away from home.... I have also heard from various sources that the day student population is more competitive with regard to being admitted to bs. What's your assessment?</p>
<p>I wouldn't go so far as to make that generalization.</p>
<p>Of course, there is always that definition of who are the "top students" to be debated just like "best prep school" is debated. </p>
<p>Are the top students measured by GPA and (in Jr/Sr years) SAT scores? Or by HYP matrics.</p>
<p>And your suggestion of a more stable environment may yield a more focused study period and better rest. But does it better prepare a student for their desired college time?</p>
<p>Now many of those day students at a school in a city like Boston may be day students at Havard and be able to continue that controlled home environment. </p>
<p>But most of them will end up going away to school at some point in their life and will have to learn how to live ouside of the protective cocoon of home.</p>
<p>Now for many, they may develop the maturity to jump into the wild and crazy college atmosphere and manage their lives very well on their own. In their case, being a boarder or day student is inconsequential.</p>
<p>Now for many, the controlled (if you can call it that - it is more controlled than a college dorm) boarding experience at most boarding schools (generalization here), allows a student to develop the ability to manage time in a gradually loosening (over their 4 years) environment. And that experience is not as easily replicated as well at home for day students.</p>
<p>Hence, you hear the stories about graduates of boarding schools being better able to adapt to the freedom of the college environment. It certainly is a head start on performing well at college, but no guarantee of success.</p>
<p>But, as with so many other things at CC YMMV.</p>
<p>In my experiences, I have found that the more brilliant day students are always fac brats, and that the vast majority of other day students (unless they are athletic or music recruits) benefit heavily from the admissions boost they receive from living in the area. The vast majority of day students pull average grades, do JV2 sports, maybe a club or two and usually a more social one at that (Asian society as opposed to Debate) and are generally unspectacular and do not contribute much to campus life. </p>
<p>However, I have found that day students are the best at music. Whether this is because they can practice easier at home (easily accessable practice space as opposed to boarders who have to walk quite far to the music builiding for practice??), or because the town of is a hot-bed for budding concert performers (not sure if this is true either), or some other reason, day students seem to be the best at music.</p>
<p>A case in point: out of our 3 co-concertmasters at Andover, 2 of them are day students.</p>
<p>Top students as in GPA</p>