SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Access to a world of infinite information has changed how we communicate, process information, and think. Decentralized systems have proven to be more productive and agile than rigid, top-down ones. Innovation, creativity, and independent thinking are increasingly crucial to the global economy.
And yet the dominant model of public education is still fundamentally rooted in the industrial revolution that spawned it, when workplaces valued punctuality, regularity, attention, and silence above all else. (In 1899, William T. Harris, the US commissioner of education, celebrated the fact that US schools had developed the "appearance of a machine," one that teaches the student "to behave in an orderly manner, to stay in his own place, and not get in the way of others.") We don't openly profess those values nowadays, but our educational system—which routinely tests kids on their ability to recall information and demonstrate mastery of a narrow set of skills—doubles down on the view that students are material to be processed, programmed, and quality-tested. School administrators prepare curriculum standards and "pacing guides" that tell teachers what to teach each day. Legions of managers supervise everything that happens in the classroom; in 2010 only 50 percent of public school staff members in the US were teachers.
...
That's why a new breed of educators, inspired by everything from the Internet to evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and AI, are inventing radical new ways for children to learn, grow, and thrive. To them, knowledge isn't a commodity that's delivered from teacher to student but something that emerges from the students' own curiosity-fueled exploration. Teachers provide prompts, not answers, and then they step aside so students can teach themselves and one another. They are creating ways for children to discover their passion—and uncovering a generation of geniuses in the process.
Good, long article on how education could be reinvented for the 21st century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @01:45PM
It's not as if no one had ever thought of, and even implemented in specific schools, better ways to teach children. Yet our schools are still largely following the same old model. So why should things be different this time?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @01:55PM
Because 'no child left behind'.
The idea was to test them and see if they needed help and free them up to teach however they needed.
Instead it turned into 'teach to the common core test'. As you did not want your funding pulled. So everyone follows 'the program'.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Monday August 24 2015, @04:23PM
Instead it turned into 'teach to the common core test'.
Actually, it was "teach to the state test" and paying schools by test results long before Common Core came along - possibly even before NCLB. In theory, Common Core is supposed to be the solution to this: If you actually look at the common core standards for, say, mathematics [corestandards.org] they're anything but "teach to the test". Unfortunately, they been launched into a culture that has already become obsessed with measuring student performance to inappropriate precision, using tests that have been dumbed down for ease and consistency of marking, statistical reliability and legal defensibility, to produce simplistic figures for by-the-numbers management and teacher accountability. By the time the Common Core standards have been "interpreted" into test specs that fit the requirements of school and state management for a stick to beat teachers with, the point is usually lost.
Few of the controversies around Common Core have anything to do with the actual standards (which, at worst, are a bit over-ambitious) - all the over-testing and teacher accountability stuff were happening anyway. No standards are going to work if teachers still walk into the classroom and announce "OK, today we are learning CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.6.EE.A.2.A which will be Question 26 on the test".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @07:29PM
If you actually look at the common core standards for, say, mathematics they're anything but "teach to the test".
You must be joking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @08:02PM
I said what it was meant to be. Then stated what it turned into.
You could tell what you just said to all my friends who have kids in grade school.
One of my friends had to go in and get ahold of the teaching curriculum to decide what his kid was NOT learning. He did that after he asked his 7th grader what time is it on the watch he had sitting on the dash of his car and his hands were full of a carburetor and grease and the kid couldnt do it. He then quizzed the rest of his 4 kids. Not one could tell the fucking time. Simple fractional division? Nope. Simple multiplication without a calculator? Nope. But they could subdivide a problem all day long. Suddenly the kid went from A/B student to probably having tutoring. As the real test his parents asked he could not even begin on doing. Plus the follow 3 kids getting the same education.
School districts have a LOT of leeway in what they teach. They also do not want to get shut down being 'the under performing one'. So they figure out mostly the things on the test and teach ONLY that. They do not walk in and say 'CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.6.EE.A.2.A'. They find a similar problem to that one change it up a bit and make sure the kid can answer that. Add in a mix of resentment of the school board telling them how exactly to do their jobs with helicopter parents. You end up with the shitstorm mess of 'no child left behind'.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday August 24 2015, @05:03PM
The real idea of No Child Left Behind was this:
1. Make sure public schools are considered failures. The formulas are pretty much guaranteed to have significant numbers of failing public schools, and particularly penalize public schools that handle difficult cases like kids whose native language is not English and kids who have severe learning disorders.
2. Use the failing public schools to justify completely replacing them with privately run charter schools that don't have to follow the same rules as public schools, particularly (but not limited to) union contracts and restrictions on in-school religion.
3. Lay off the unionized public school teachers and let them compete with the recent college grads for those generous $28K-a-year teaching gigs at the charter schools.
4. Run off with what used to be the teachers' union pension fund, and pay charter school company CEOs big bucks from the taxpayer trough.
The system doesn't work because it was designed to not work.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @08:32PM
The tests are constructed and administered by a privatized profit-driven entity.
The contents of any given test is "intellectual property", so, if a parent wants to see why his kid's score was different than expected by looking at the questions, no dice.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 24 2015, @02:15PM
Oh, no. I'd broadly disagree. We've had a lot of changes in various ways to education.
I remember being placed in an experimental classroom in 2nd and 3rd grade that was evaluating the effectiveness of mixed-grade hands-on education. Very different from the traditional approach. It wasn't a fun transition back to traditional education the next year(I can't speak to the efficacy of that particular study, I was too young to care). And that was decades ago.
We've been trying a lot of things, and some of it has been working. Believe it or not, there's a lot of ways in which school kids today are collectively smarter than we were 2 decades ago(though internet induced attention disorders may hack away a bit at that result).
Now, the most wide-spread changes have gotten huuuuuuuge populist and teacher-backed backlash. Common core math standards and standardized testing being the easiest to see. So it's not hard to see where the traditionalist force is coming from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @02:24PM
Believe it or not, there's a lot of ways in which school kids today are collectively smarter than we were 2 decades ago
We'd need an objective way to measure intelligence before we could determine that. I don't think they are worse, but I also currently don't see good evidence that they are truly better. More knowledgeable, perhaps, but that differs from being smarter.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 24 2015, @02:50PM
We have lots of objective tools for measuring intelligence. They all measure something slightly different from each other.
The Flynn effect is the term of the described inter-generational increase in one of those measures(IQ). So I'd say the bigger problem isn't the lack of objective measures, but that you personally don't have a definition of "smart" that satisfies you. You should find one. Then we can look for evidence one way or another.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @03:00PM
We have lots of objective tools for measuring intelligence.
I've seen no good evidence that IQ is actually a measurement of intelligence. We'd first need to actually understand what "intelligence" actually is, what exactly makes some people more or less "intelligent", etc.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 24 2015, @03:01PM
You could read the rest of my post before raising an objection I addressed directly.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2015, @03:06PM
"Believe it or not, there's a lot of ways in which school kids today are collectively smarter than we were 2 decades ago"
Citations? Maybe the key to your claim is "2 decades ago"? I really, really, REALLY don't think they are in any way smarter than high school grads 4 decades ago. And, I'm half sure that those of us who graduated in the 70's were already dumbed down from the previous generations. Have you ever seen the tests given to 8th grade kids from the late 1800's and early 1900's? The damned things are tough!
Kids back then only went to school for 8 years, mostly. Somehow, knowledge was crammed into their little skulls pretty damned quickly, for them to pass those tests. Schooling was obviously more efficient back then.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/13/1230894/-Most-Adults-Would-Likely-Fail-This-1912-8th-Grade-Test-Try-It-VIDEO [dailykos.com]
What are kids learning today that makes them "smart"? I'd really like to know. What do they have that replaces the Vo-Tech schools that the government did away with? And, the magnet schools? It's a long, LONG time since I've heard of a "gifted and talented" program. It's like, the system doesn't even want to identify the really smart kids, let alone give them an avenue on which they might excel.
Pretty much every child can read today, but at what grade levels are they reading? I guess it was the mid-80's when it seemed every college in the nation started offering "remedial english", because kids were simply not prepared to read on a college level.
http://educationnext.org/us-students-educated-families-lag-international-tests/ [educationnext.org]
Ahhh, here we go - "the sat score began to decline in 1962" - even earlier than I thought. That would be just about the same time that the Departments of Education around the nation started their "headstart", "preschool" and "dayschool" programs. They knew then that the education system sucked, so they threw money at it - and throwing money at the education system has not worked.
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Adams.pdf [aft.org]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 24 2015, @03:11PM
The SATS started declining the because participation rates have been increasing.
It's a shallow analysis to say "Oh look, raw scores are going down and they readjusted, so kids must be dumber."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2015, @03:23PM
Sorry, yours is a shallow response. The greater participation is accounted for in the PDF. The demographics are accounted for. Bottom line - our most privileged and gifted students in the USA today are ONLY on par with other first world nations, AT BEST.
You don't really believe that the US still has the best school systems in the world, do you? There is a long list of countries with better school systems, starting with S. Korea and Japan. Would you like to see that list?
1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. South Korea
4. Japan (joint)
4. Taiwan (joint)
6. Finland
7. Estonia
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. Canada
11. Poland
12. Vietnam
13. Germany
14. Australia
15. Ireland
16. Belgium
17. New Zealand
18. Slovenia
19. Austria
20. United Kingdom
21. Czech Republic
22. Denmark
23. France
24. Latvia
25. Norway
26. Luxembourg
27. Spain
28. Italy (joint)
28. United States (joint)
30. Portugal
31. Lithuania
32. Hungary
33. Iceland
34. Russia
35. Sweden
36. Croatia
37. Slovak Republic
38. Ukraine
39. Israel
40. Greece
41. Turkey
42. Serbia
43. Bulgaria
44. Romania
45. UAE
46. Cyprus
47. Thailand
48. Chile
49. Kazakhstan
50. Armenia
51. Iran
52. Malaysia
53. Costa Rica
54. Mexico
55. Uruguay
56. Montenegro
57. Bahrain
58. Lebanon
59. Georgia
60. Brazil
61. Jordan
62. Argentina
63. Albania
64. Tunisia
65. Macedonia
66. Saudi Arabia
67. Colombia
68. Qatar
69. Indonesia
70. Botswana
71. Peru
72. Oman
73. Morocco
74. Honduras
75. South Africa
76. Ghana
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32608772 [bbc.com]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 24 2015, @03:27PM
Where did I say the US was the best?
I said there's been improvement. I'm not going to defend a point that's not mine.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2015, @03:45PM
No, you didn't say that - I ASKED if you believe that. There really are people who still claim that the US has the best schools in the world. I suspect that most of those people are the products of our public school systems, who don't want to admit that they've been ripped off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @03:29PM
You don't really believe that the US still has the best school systems in the world, do you? There is a long list of countries with better school systems, starting with S. Korea and Japan. Would you like to see that list?
How are you defining "better"? It seems to be that it's being defined as whoever does well on poorly-designed standardized tests that don't actually test for anything truly important, like a deep understanding of the material in question. Sure, the tests are pretty efficient and cost-effective to give, and they can give the appearance of testing understanding, but that doesn't mean they're actually any good. Not that I think the US would do well there, but I doubt these other nations would either.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2015, @03:43PM
In head to head competition, students from those nations do better than our students. Is that a satisfactory comparison?
Fact is, the SAT tests are all the evidence anyone should need to recognize that our education system sucks. We grow less and less literate, as time passes. The PDF linked to above explains that the text books are ever poorer in quality, which explains much of the decline. If a high school science text book is written with the vocabulary of a 4th grade reader, how can we expect the students to LEARN? We've long been moaning about the "dumbing down" of America. It's right there - in the text books. Read 'em, and weep.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @04:09PM
Is that a satisfactory comparison?
It's a satisfactory comparison if you want to compare who is better at rote memorization. But that doesn't seem very meaningful, even if it is technically a fair comparison.
It's right there - in the text books.
The very same text books that cost insane amounts of money. There's no real reason that schools shouldn't simply be able to copy and distribute as many as necessary for as much as it costs to do so, rather than pay these companies ridiculous prices for books. No real reason outside of silly copyright laws that put corporate profits ahead of education. That or pay experts to write public domain books, or use existing ones in some cases. If only you could actually get the schools to use other books, but the ones making the decisions seem to have been bribed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @04:15PM
Please show the evidence that the tests used for the ranking tested rote memorization. Unless you can show that evidence, I'll dismiss your comment as unsubstantiated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @07:45PM
Please show the evidence that the tests used for the ranking tested rote memorization.
That's like asking for evidence that the public school system mainly just requires you to memorize information without understanding it, or asking for evidence that the SAT/ACT test for rote memorization. If you need to ask, you aren't paying attention. I won't do your research for you, so go ahead and ignore the world's problems if you wish.
What I will say is that you should read the article that person linked to above. If you search for sample problems from that Pisa test they mentioned, for example, you will see that the questions do not actually require you to have a deep understanding of the material. Silly questions that force you to make all sorts of assumptions before you're able to answer how they want you to answer, and if you deviate, then you are 'wrong', even if their questions were ill-conceived. The same sorts of arbitrary problems that teachers try to train students to answer by having them memorize certain patterns. Maybe those are alright by your standards, but they are pathetic by any decent standards.
(Score: 1) by jcm on Monday August 24 2015, @04:08PM
As an anonymous said, what is the best system ?
Perhaps Singapore and Hong Kong are the best places for education, but I doubt they are the best places for students, since there is incredible pressure to succeed.
Failure is not an option, thus people always try to game the system.
Your ranking is based only upon mathematics and science.
This may be useful for nurturing future mathematics and science researchers, but you have to realize the drawbacks of the system:
1) this encourages people having talent and passion in maths and science.
This means that all jobs not related to maths and science are shitty. Frankly, we need people to do manual jobs, like plumbers or farmers
2) only the top elite will be able to live from their talent, since only a few places are available each year in their country (I'm aware of that since I'm in France).
A lot of programmers I met came from other science branches, because they couldn't get a job.
What we need is people enough educated. All the talented students should be able to pursue their passion in elite schools, but they are only a few.
Perhaps you believe that working with computers is the best job in the world, but I can assure you that it's only your own point-of-view.
If more programmers appear in the computing field, the level will decrease a lot, and the pay too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2015, @04:45PM
Good response - despite the fact that you've pegged me wrong.
In an earlier post, I made mention of Vo-Tech schools. In 1972, I had the opportunity to attend Vo-Tech. It seemed pretty attractive at the time - learn welding, among other things, and upon graduation, I could walk out the doors, into a nice paying job. Three years of high school, actually preparing for a career in a field that actually existed, right in my home town, just down the road.
I chose to continue with the more academic studies - chemistry, biology, etc.
In the years since, I believe that all Vo-Tech schools have disappeared. Or, rather, those that exist are "college" level, or community college. High school students aren't permitted to play with fire, or knives, or screwdrivers, or anything that might conceivably cause an injurty today.
The funny thing about Vo-Tech students? The majority of them seemed to be near my own level of literacy. They understood geometry, algebra, and most certainly had mastered basic maths. The real failures were those students who shared the same school hallways that I used, in the main public schools. They knew they weren't going to college, and they just gave up. They didn't have any hopes and dreams for the future, so they had no need to study.
No, I am certainly NOT any better than those kids who study traditional crafts and trades. But, that doesn't change the fact that our schools are failing today. They are failing the less talented, just as much as they are failing the very talented.
(Score: 2, Informative) by plogerjb on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:15AM
I attended Vo Tech for Computer Networking, which as a two year program prepared me completely for CCNA testing as well as a lot of other computer related tasks. That said, my teacher tried to skip me a year, but the school wouldn't have it. Gotta go through the rigors like everyone else.
I did get to see a good bit of what went on in other areas (photography/media design/etc, welding, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, CAD, nursing, dentistry, and much more. I do believe there was practical knowledge learned. All of us got to use equipment and learn hands on. I had a very exceptional teacher, so we got away with as much hands on as Computer Networking allowed, including running new cables in the building and working with outside companies to perform community service weekly to help those in need with computer related issues.
Do I think everyone had the same opportunity? No. Did I choose the right program? Who knows, I do tons of computer work still but do automotive work by trade because I enjoy it and I'm paid quite handsomely. That said, I think the exposure and even attempting to involve students with more than just "group activities" is a great thing. I loved the program, and think it's a wonderful thing. I'm rather disappointed this isn't a universal experience.
If you want practical people capable of exercising the knowledge they do possess, you have to let them try practical things (AND mess up!)
I believe in doing the right thing as well as being fair. Sometimes these don't go hand in hand.
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:48PM
Last I heard my old highschool still had them (I only graduated in 2008, so it wasn't *that* long ago); and I certainly don't expect they've eliminated them since. It's always been a fairly popular program. They had welding, networking, cosmetology, culinary, automotive, and a few others I don't remember at the moment. I know my currently girlfriend, who grew up in Vermont (I was in Pennsylvania) attending a similar program in her highschool so quite a few such programs definitely do still exist.
I went the other route though and took some classes at the local university. Which was pretty worthless to be honest -- how many times can you take introduction to OOP and still learn something? The assembly class was decent, but still easier than my highschool programming classes...the university has a decent reputation for other fields, but they're not much for comp sci. Credits didn't even transfer. It was fun though! :)
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday August 24 2015, @04:50PM
And you don't see the problem there?
Here's a hint, you can't compare people across cultures using the same testing. That's the main reason why you see Black people doing so poorly on IQ tests, they're normed for something that's closer to the dominant culture and so you see the people in the dominant culture doing well and everybody else performing poorly.
That's not to say that there aren't changes that are badly needed, but trying to compare different countries like that is asinine. The reference you linked to is just a ranking, it doesn't show how far apart the results are. You're talking about a relatively narrow difference between the top and the bottom contenders. Most of those cases are separated by a relatively small percentage. These are human students and the difference at the top end is going to be fairly small.
As far as economic participation goes, that has little to do with educational quality. That's a matter of access to jobs. People that pick up bottles on the side of the road or wash cars are participating in the economy, but I don't think that anybody would claim that requires any education. Those are both activities that you can do with literally no education of any sort other than being able to speak the language. You don't even have to read the bottles if the boss tells you which ones to read.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24 2015, @05:14PM
"Here's a hint, you can't compare people across cultures using the same testing."
Maybe, maybe not. I wonder though - would it bother you to know that Asian students know Western history as well as, or even better, than western students? While western students are far to arrogant to even bother with Asian history.
The various disciplines aren't culture-centric, either. Geology is geology. Physics are going to be the same in any language. Biology, and the human body, simply does not change from one continent to the next. And, the US is failing to produce top notch scholars at the same rate that half the other countries in the list.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @08:27PM
They don't. The Chinese barely know there own history and think of Hitler as that nice man with a mustache. I'm sure they've memorized a long list of events and dates, but that's hardly the same thing as knowing history.
As far as producing top notch scholars, 2/3 of the top universities in the world are in the US, seems to me that we're doing something right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @08:34PM
Yes, the *top* universities. The majority of colleges and universities are still quite bad in the US and other countries, however. If they were more like the top universities, the situation would be much better.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:50AM
The only way that would work is if we went down the road that most other countries did and told most of the students that they're not allowed to go to college at all. Or have to take years of remedial courses in order to get a second chance.
I've met people from various parts of the world and they really and truly aren't any smarter than Americans over all. They just happen to have a different set of incompetencies.
Most people just don't have the ambition and work ethic necessary to go to a top school. I went to one of the top schools in the US and they have an acceptance rate of about 96%, just because they have a reputation for being hard on students that aren't willing to do the work and think for themselves. For students that are willing to do their fair share of the work, the education is amazing, but for students that are just looking for a degree with as little thinking and effort as possible, it wouldn't work.
It's hardly the only school like that in the country, it's just that you sometimes have to do a little bit of digging to find them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:45AM
The only way that would work is if we went down the road that most other countries did and told most of the students that they're not allowed to go to college at all.
Education is important, so it would be worth it. Instead, most colleges are just half-assed trade schools in disguise, which doesn't provide real education and perpetuates the myth that colleges and universities are there mainly so people can make money and get good jobs.
But I don't see things like you do. I think if we had an all-around better education system, people would be far more prepared for good-quality colleges and universities.
For students that are willing to do their fair share of the work, the education is amazing, but for students that are just looking for a degree with as little thinking and effort as possible, it wouldn't work.
I'm thinking those sorts of people really shouldn't be in formal education.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:19AM
Well, I've lived in japan as a teacher and china as a grad student and have travelled extensively in korea and southeast asia. My wife and inlaws are korean. Based on that experience I observe that the number of dumbasses is more or less constant across all places. From the perspective of many in north america it might seem like "asians are smarter than americans," but that's often because you're comparing the creme de la creme de la creme of those societies to bubba the redneck who scratches his crotch in the piggly wiggly.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by meustrus on Wednesday August 26 2015, @03:00AM
(though internet induced attention disorders may hack away a bit at that result)
I think part of the point of this particular article is that the internet's "induced attention disorders" could very well be used for good instead of evil. I know I can get very easily sidetracked from "productive" efforts reading crap on Wikipedia or God forbid Soylent News. And that's called learning.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by twistedcubic on Monday August 24 2015, @03:14PM
I have two young children. I would love them to to have the "outdated" education I got in the 1980s. What exactly was the problem? My teacher taught us the square root algorithm in 8th grade. Oh, the horrors! (Curiously, whenever I show the square root algorithm to engineering undergraduates, they get *really* excited.) The only new exciting thing today is that, instead of owning a Commodore 128 which broke after a year like mine, you can program in any language at any age using GNU compilers, on computers more powerful and cheaper (even in real dollars) than the Commodore.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 24 2015, @02:07PM
We know that geniuses can be just as obnoxious, useless, and unhelpful as everyone else.
If you don't work with someone who's incredibly smart, but is lazy or cruel or shallow, I'd be astounded.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 24 2015, @02:25PM
Actually, I've never encountered that type over my years in the industry.
I've met plenty of people who were lazy, cruel, and shallow who thought they were incredibly smart. But none of them actually were - their code was at best average, they did not have particularly good design ideas, and when bugs in their stuff happened they were not at all helpful in fixing them. The thing was, management would buy their brash claims about how smart they were a lot of the time, even ignoring their senior tech guys saying "He's really not that good, and actually doing a lot of damage." (Management interprets this as "senior tech guys jealous of new genius's preferential treatment" and acts accordingly.)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @02:43PM
So lazy, cruel and shallow people get better treatment?
Maybe those people actually were geniuses, just not in the field of programming.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 24 2015, @03:34PM
Not really: The final stages of their tales, once management figured out years later than their senior dev team was in fact right in its assessment (missed deadlines and angry customers have a way of changing hearts and minds), ended along the lines of not being able to work in the industry in the region they lived in, because tales of incompetence had spread far and wide.
That's the problem with illusions: Eventually, people stop believing in them and they don't work anymore.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday August 24 2015, @05:22PM
I think it's more of a "everybody gets a participation trophy just to show up to the race" kind of thing which is typical of student coddling nowadays, the same kind of coddling that doesn't prepare and does damage the expectations and ability to function in the real-world.
Yeah, being at work when other people want you to, listening to what's being said for more than 5 seconds without fidgeting or reaching for your phone, and respecting a chain of command and having enough self-control to not interrupt others when talking -- Yeah, that's all for the birds, sooooo 19th century.
Why don't we just let our perpetually diaper-wearing "geniuses" do whatever the fuck they want like babies get to and everything will just magically fall into place! I'm sure those investors touring the building are going gaga over the added value of our productive unbathed dick-kneading nose-picking Pokemon-playing soda-chugging manchildren!
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday August 24 2015, @06:27PM
I think it's more of a "everybody gets a participation trophy just to show up to the race" kind of thing which is typical of student coddling nowadays, the same kind of coddling that doesn't prepare and does damage the expectations and ability to function in the real-world.
Exactly. The self-esteem movement has a lot to answer for, in more than just education. And, yes, it really is a movement [encorepub.com], albeit a well-intentioned but woefully misguided one. The truly sad part is that parent groups are still promoting the movement, even after mounting evidence of how devastating it is to society as a whole, as well as to the kids in particular.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday August 24 2015, @04:31PM
The best programmers I've met have tended to be pretty lazy.
"hard workers" will cut and paste (or retype!) the same code all over the place, the lazy ones refactor the code into something smaller and simpler and more testable and reliable. Or replace entire departments of "hard workers" with very small shell scripts. Automate testing instead of making some poor bastard work real hard to do it manually. Automate/implement version control because they're tired of "fixing" manual version control. Automate deployment processes. "Well I could write my own bug filled XML processor from scratch in a couple days but there's a CPAN module that'll do it in about two minutes of work"
This is a good argument against programming being engineering aka software engineering. I've never met a really good lazy EE or lazy engineer in general. The lazy ones tend to under spec driving the techs nuts or over spec driving the buyers/accountants/sales nuts.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 24 2015, @04:51PM
I didn't think OP was referring to that kind of laziness, which is productive effort motivated by the goal of reducing workload.
I think he was referring to this kind of laziness:
- Not bothering with any testing at all on the code, automated or otherwise (e.g. one person who fits the characterization under discussion sent me code with syntax errors all over the place and told me it was production-ready).
- If extra time is available, instead of automating deployment, setting up version control, refactoring, etc, will put their time towards perusing Facebook.
- Refusing to do any documentation whatsoever, because the code (which is nearly incomprehensible to everyone, including the guy who wrote it) is "self-documenting".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 24 2015, @05:07PM
I'm not disagreeing with you that those people suck, but what software engineering needs is to borrow the concept of "malpractice".
You could say a medical doctor who says "F it I'll roll the DnD dice to get blood lab results instead of waiting for real labwork and your blood sugar is rollin 5d20" is kinda being lazy sorta in a sense, but most would recognize that behavior as malpractice.
A lazy medical doc would say "I'll schedule all my elective surgeries back to back so I don't have to drive between the hospital and my office every couple hours". Those guys suck if you're the last in line and have to wait an extra three hours because of unpredictable earlier delays, but they're not technically malpractice.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday August 24 2015, @05:26PM
Reminds me of a saying I heard ages ago (and can no longer find). It went something like this:
"A poor programmer always adds lines of code whenever he touches a program. A good programmer only adds lines when adding functionality. A guru adds functionality by deleting lines of code."
There's a lot of truth to it. I have an annual assignment to implement a simple game (a different game every year). A good solution can be usually be implemented in under 1000 lines of code. I have had poor solutions handed in with 20k lines or more. Funny how some students complain that the project is just too much work...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @02:14PM
To a certain extent, with the virtually limitless amount of material on the Web of varying quality and format (print, video, programmed instruction, etc).
In a way, it means that a lot more smart, determined kids have the learning resources that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburg did at a similar age.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Monday August 24 2015, @02:34PM
Smart kids back then knew how to go to the library. They had access to more or less the same information then as smart kids does today. The quality to quantity ratio was most likely a lot better then it is today on the internet/web. You might have spent more time searching but a lot less time to weed out the good from the bad. But to access it you had to work for it, today you just google for it. The ability to push yourself (or "drive") probably doesn't increase just cause information might be easier to access. You still have to be able to turn basic knowledge into something, and googling it just won't do that for you.
I seriously doubt we'll see many more or even generations of geniuses pop up just cause they have the internet and/or are being left by their teachers to find their own way. That is sort of the point of having a school -- so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every day or generation. You are passing on suitable knowledge down the generations from the previous once. Yes it might in large be "worker-drone-school"; but then most of the pupils can't or won't become leaders in the field -- they'll become work-drones. It's sad, but it's reality. The need to read, write, basic math and knowing a bit about our past etc. I see nothing that would indicate that this will really change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @02:53PM
That is sort of the point of having a school -- so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every day or generation.
No, that's the point of having access to information. Whether you get the information from a school or elsewhere doesn't really matter.
but then most of the pupils can't or won't become leaders in the field -- they'll become work-drones.
And they are also completely uncritical of authority to the point where a lot of people even accept horrendous things like mass surveillance. They not only demonstrate their complete ignorance of the fact that all governments throughout history have abused their powers in horrendous ways, but they also demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills when they act like basic human nature doesn't apply to the people in the government. They lack respect for freedom, privacy, and the principles of nations that strive to be free. It helps create the situation we see today.
If only schools actually focused on education.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Monday August 24 2015, @03:09PM
No, that's the point of having access to information. Whether you get the information from a school or elsewhere doesn't really matter.
To interpret information you need a frame of reference. This is what education (and school) gives. A common reference, a common skillset. If everyone have their own there will be chaos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @03:14PM
To interpret information you need a frame of reference.
You need a brain.
This is what education (and school) gives.
I advocate for education, whether it comes from a school or not. A school is just one means of gaining an education.
And which schools? A grand majority are abysmal.
If everyone have their own there will be chaos.
It sounds like you're saying it would bring about chaos if people started thinking for themselves. I'm not sure what else you could mean, but it's almost certainly false in any case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @03:18PM
A crucial part of mastering a subject is to put together a program that is a series of carefully graded steps, so the learner masters one step before moving onto the next (OK, some overlap is customary). And the quality of instruction and/or feedback in each step has to be high. That's what I do as an adult learner in sports and other hobbies. That's what was so difficult in the era before the Web, unless you had the luxury of going to a high-end prep school like Gates did, that happens to be more interested in instruction than in, let's say, kids being sharply dressed.
In theory, public schools are supposed to provide that series of graded steps, and it does, but not well enough to churn out geniuses in most cases. Some do a pretty good job with coaching high-prestige sports like soccer and American football.
Sure, Gates was an unusually bright and motivated kid BUT he started with a big advantage. Now lots of people (I won't say everyone) have that advantage.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 24 2015, @04:11PM
A common reference, a common skillset. If everyone have their own there will be chaos.
Oh, but haven't you heard? All answers are good answers. All points of view are equally valid.
Failed solutions are valuable learning experiences. There are no wrong answers.
At the end of the day EVER student gets a gold star!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday August 24 2015, @04:39PM
I see the result of that everyday as they walk about the university campus. All the little coddled gold star pupils.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 24 2015, @04:39PM
then most of the pupils can't or won't become leaders in the field -- they'll become work-drones.
More like they'll be unemployed. Winner take all, maximize income inequality, etc.
Every waitress / barista / receptionist / bartender has some kind of college degree around here. Communications, psych, education, pretty much anything but STEM fields. The most common job title for a 99th percentile in english lit is professor. However the most common job title for a mere 98th percentile in english lit, for example, is "bartender" or "trophy wife" or whatever...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday August 24 2015, @02:20PM
If you have motivated, intelligent students whose parents believe in education - then yes. Of course, with students like that, it takes a real effort to prevent them from learning. This sounds like a great approach for certain subject, when teaching the best students. And we do need to invest in the best students.
Unfortunately, that's not what TFA is talking about. TFA doesn't even know what it is talking about. It presents examples where this kind of unstructured learning has worked in some very poor classrooms - in second world countries. We're talking about motivated students, whose parents probably value education very highly as the way forward. Give students like that a good teacher and access to resources, and of course they can excel.
From this basis, the article supposes that the same method will work in inner city schools in the US, to rescue the hundreds of thousands of dropouts. This is a completely different situation. The classrooms in US cities are not starved for resources. The problems lie elsewhere: The unmotivated students. The students whose parents don't care about school. Give these an unstructured learning environment, and, well...let's not go there.
If you really want to make a difference with kids in US inner city schools, you have to face some unpleasant realities. Most of these kids do not need prepared for college. They need basic job and life skills: a trade and the ability to balance their bank account. They need discipline in the schools, because they get none at home. You almost certainly need to haul the hard-cases off to military-style boarding schools, so that they stop disrupting the education of the ones you can actually teach.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 24 2015, @04:31PM
TFA:
step aside so students can teach themselves and one another.
BRADLEY13:
Give these an unstructured learning environment, and, well...let's not go there.
The problem is, we've already gone there.
As soon as they are able, many drop out of school, and begin "teaching themselves and others". Normally we call these gang bangers, or just hoodlums. They adopt a tribal identity.
The first things the teach themselves are skills, habits, and tribal markings that guarantee they will never have any mainstream career and always be employed on the firinges of society, if at all. Head to toe tattoos, piercings, gauges in dangling ear lobes. All signs of the tribe.
And by and large, they get away with it long enough to wall off any possibility of traditional learning from their fellow "students".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Monday August 24 2015, @04:54PM
a trade
Who gets unemployed so they get the job? Just saying, increasing the number of people with pieces of paper has never created a single job in the history of humanity. If you've got 100 jobs and 200 people trained for them and 200 untrained, increasing the ratio to 300 trained and 100 untrained isn't going to change the reality of there's still only 100 jobs and now 100 folks are in debt for the training they can't use.
Its a classic micro vs macro economic mistake.
On a micro level a single individual always benefits from becoming more educated than their peers. On a macro level giving everyone a participation trophy / participation degree merely means you'll change from having ten million un and under employed dropouts to having the same ten million now holding a worthless degree, still un and under employed.
Its very similar to the money/inflation argument. I'm better off if I have an extra $100 in my wallet and everyone else doesn't. Put an extra $100 in everyone wallet and nobody is any better off.
This is basically whats going on in higher ed right now with respect to scam like tuition costs and government educational loans.
You can't fix too many people for too few jobs by handing out diplomas.
(Score: 2) by dcollins on Monday August 24 2015, @05:02PM
That's a great post, unusual level of clarity, thanks for writing it.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:50AM
> Just saying, increasing the number of people with pieces of paper has never created a single job in the history of humanity.
Two counter arguments:
* Country A is in competition with country B. A lot of jobs can be moved to another country (see, for example, gripes elsewhere about H1NB or whatever the US visas are called)
* The number of jobs is not static. Probably if you have people who are better educated, they are more able to create jobs (e.g. inventing cool stuff which someone needs to build).
That second point is a fundamental building block of the modern world.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:55AM
That second point is a fundamental building block of the modern world.
I agree with a superficial analysis, but at a deeper level of analysis is nothing is pragmatically and observationally more toxic to entrepreneurship than the existing educational system.
We COULD create an ideal educational system where every founder myth doesn't begin with "First, I dropped out of school", but we certainly don't have that now.
There is also the hidden assumption that vocational training and brainwashing for industrial factories circa 1900, which is the system we have now, is any good at educating people. Along the lines of the old saying never let school get in the way of your education.
I guess I'm saying it would be cool if the memes you quoted were true, but they are not, so...
(Score: 2) by threedigits on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:17AM
> You can't fix too many people for too few jobs by handing out diplomas.
Education is not (or should be not) about handling out diplomas, but about getting knowledge into people's brains, and giving them tools to make a better life for themselves (and society as a whole).
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:04PM
None of our metrics measure that; we aren't getting that and are not going to get that.
I agree with you it would be cool if we got that.
Its pretty much the Santa or Tooth fairy argument. Man that would be awesome; aint happening; but that would be awesome.
Its interesting that thru human history, formal or informal apprenticeship (or a very similar system) has been extremely effective and stable; the last century of public schooling with the factory whistle and rows of desks has been pretty much an epic expensive fail. The hard sci fi future probably looks a lot like an apprenticeship system with a strong online component (both for well rounded classes to cover things the master hasn't mastered, and quite possibly some apprenticeship relationships).
Interestingly the online component would save the inner cities... without online they'd be stuck, whereas my kid would apprentice under the CFO accountant next door to my house, perhaps. But with a strong online component an inner city kid would at least have a chance at getting a decent apprenticeship, however small it would be better than now.
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Monday August 24 2015, @02:25PM
TL;DR but here is a qualified guess:
- this works only on people who do not see their own shortcomings
- this works only on people who have very easy to get self esteem
- this works only on people who do not fret on the phenomenon of "understanding"
and lastly:
- this works only on people who never leave the lab.
kind of like lab only teraflop cpu on 15W tdp...
I think, good scientists and engineers have a lot in common with very good military personnel.
The reason is, that the mechanism that unlinks/attenuates the perception of the self and the perception of others are as good for combat as it is for science.
Example:
I can let go of the self, and code for many hours, or let go of the self and fight until I die.
I can let go of the self, and study a blueprint until it is in my head, and I can manipulate it in 3D...
Or I can let go of the self and others deaths and study a map and reports of the battlefield until I can see it clearly in my head, full with the oceans of blood and the clouds ravens...
Moral: not all the people that evolution sent to the aid of humanity "romantic" from a corporate culture viewpoint.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by dcollins on Monday August 24 2015, @03:07PM
It doesn't matter how many every-decade education reform cycles we go through, some idiot is going to dig up the 1899 William T. Harris quote and pretend that has anything to do with what happens in classrooms. I'm so sick of this BS getting rehashed forever like it's some clever observation, I can't even deal with it anymore.
(Score: 2) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Monday August 24 2015, @05:16PM
Indeed. There have been competing opinions on education since practically forever. As I remember it, e.g. Einstein went to university in a time and place where you could just show up (or not) for whatever lectures you wanted. This was contemporary with the Harris quote. We can also take it back to e.g. the different opinions of Plato and the sophists.
This paper [udel.edu] gets mentioned from time to time. It is uncomfortable to think of but it may be that people just learn differently, in a way that is correlated with IQ. Apparently those who score high in IQ benefit from less structured learning and struggle when 'spoon-fed'. The low IQ crowd experience the opposite. It may help explain why various unstructured learning methods show up on sites like this one like the weeds in my garden.
P.S. since I know it will come up: I don't care what you think of IQ test results. If they correlate with something, they are at least somewhat relevant for that thing, especially when the population as a whole is being discussed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday August 24 2015, @05:37PM
A creepy quote from your linked paper:
The middle 50% of the bell curve (IQ 91-110) - the average person - is readily trained for the bulk of jobs in society: clerks and secretaries, skilled trades and protective service workers, dispatchers, insurance sales representatives, and other midlevel work.
Consider that paper is only about two decades old, and those jobs are gone or going fast, via a combination of mergers, automation, and offshoring, except for the cops, and even they'll get droned and surveillance-d up, eventually.
Think of living in the city, where there's plenty of places to live if you're under $15K/yr or over $500K/yr but nothing for anyone in between? The economy of the future is going to be like living in the city, plenty of jobs digging ditches in landscaping and plenty of jobs for board certified neurosurgeons, and nothing for anyone in between.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Monday August 24 2015, @06:00PM
I work in industry, in a sector which today employs half as many people in my country as two decades ago. I am a thinker; I play some small part in this decline in jobs because I do work which saves costs, which are directly or indirectly wages.
If we did not do things this way, it would only make matters worse as we would not be able to compete. (And we struggle as it is, with the current economic climate.) Political interference make things especially tough over here but problems exist even where that is not a factor.
I genuinely do not know the One True Answer. But I can say this: Malnutrition, illness, poverty, psychological distress, etc. all influence the sharpness of the mind directly and sometimes permanently. It is in the interest of everyone to combat these things, and promote education, because we're running out of easy jobs and its better for society to spend the money now than carry all that dead weight in a few decades. We already have a huge surpluss of unskilled labour.
(Score: 1) by dingus on Monday August 24 2015, @03:12PM
"unleashing a generation of geniuses" isn't going to happen. At the most maybe people will find what they like to learn about a little easier. Why? Because most kids don't get much enjoyment from learning at all, expecially in secondary levels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @05:37PM
Indeed. In order to create a "generation of geniuses" you need to motivate them to reach for high goals.
And this, right here, is the Achilles' heel to their plan to creating this new generation of geniuses. Most, given the opportunity, will take the path of least resistance; very few school age children will be wise enough to make the hard choices to learn those difficult subjects. Math and science too hard for you? Avoid these subjects by spending more time reading poetry. Reading novels too boring for you? Spend all your time doing math and science instead. The art of teaching lies in motivating students to learn those difficult subjects that they struggle with. That is how you create true geniuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @07:52PM
I don't think an idiot or normie can ever turn into a genius, unless you have a very low standard for what qualifies as a "genius".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @08:20PM
Education research is at the pinnacle of the modern pseudoscience posing as science issue. All the bad stats practices originated from there, even before psychology adopted them. So the first thing to do is start using scientific methods to assess the effectiveness of educational strategies. Without that we will continue to have no idea what works under what conditions, it is pointless to make such changes without also having a way to assess the outcome.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VortexCortex on Monday August 24 2015, @09:00PM
First, Sudbury Schools exist and already have no curriculum. [wikipedia.org] They embrace the known fact that children learn different interests and socialize at different levels not directly tied to their age.
Secondly: If you care one ounce about education you owe it to yourself to watch at least the first 20 minutes of this video made in the 90's about the increasingly dystopian mind control methods being used in schools since at least the 60's. [youtube.com] Common Core is a new iteration of the same old agenda: Dumb the kids down with inefficient and incorrect education system, now with injecting social justice. [youtube.com] Right Wing Tinfoil you say? See this link where the material itself says just that. It's not a left vs right but an elite vs dumbed-down-masses. The goal is to create a passive compliant working class and maintain an elite innovator class via private schools, and furthermore to gain corporate control over education via charteschools replacing public schools. This is why Bill Gates pushes Common Core while keeping his kids away from that mind fuckery and in private schools. Hell, The Gates even propose hooking up kids to galvanic response meters [dianeravitch.net] allegedly to rate teacher's teaching effectiveness -- but when you watch the first vid linked and note the fact that the feds have been building personality and attitude profiles of students for decades it becomes apparent that the heart rate and skin conductivity data will simply enrich their personal federal profile (like Common Core is designed to do).
People digging into media figures concerning #Gamergate discovered some strange connections between gaming media and certain Social Justice focused Educational Reform groups. One such discovery was a slew of videos by Microsoft Research about "serious games" initiative. In addition to providing a more immersive way to indoctrinate students. [youtube.com] (Yes, "Sensitivity Training", the game), "serious games" are also "vital to national security", according to Microsoft. [youtube.com] What has this to do with reading, writing and arithmetic? Nothing! Education, as the above links demonstrates, now has a strong behavioral control and political manipulation component. With immediate feedback of educational games and head/eye tracking, input recording and the galvanic response meters, kids won't be able to lie and say, "Yeah, I bought into the brainwashing, graduate me please" and just give the feds the answers they want to see (as they currently can and do today). The sensors will act as a form of lie detector to ensure only kids that actually believe the bullshit pass the grade. Anti-authoritarian freethinkers will have a much harder time of school (as any freethinking person having been through US public education in the past few decades can attest).
Of course one intent of gamification and fine grained tracking technology such as galvanic response, and Kinect (which can now see your heart beat) will be to get the government to buy more stuff from manufacturers of said things, regardless of whether it improves education. Ostensibly, the data collection will be promoted to feds for its ability to "prevent terrorism" or "detect self radicalization", etc. Society considers games a form of entertainment and art and all prior educational game initiatives have failed. In order for "serious games" to take off the Gamer identity needed to die (and be reborn, see, "We're not gamers, we're Players"). This explains why there were all those articles about "Games don't have to be fun", and "Gamers are Dead". The gamejournopros mailing list, founded by Kyle Orland, was leaked and it turned out that "journalists" decided who would and wouldn't get coverage based on such factors as race, sex, and political belief, or whether they fit their SJW narrative. Kyle's father, Martin Orland [wested.org] is Director of Evaluation and Policy Research at WestEd: "A nonpartisan, nonprofit research, development, and service agency working with education and other communities throughout the United States and abroad, WestEd aims to improve education and other important outcomes for children youth and adults." Of course, they're a big proponent of Common Core.
So, I would advise any thinking person to be cautious as fuck when it comes to "new teaching methods". There are really good ones, like just giving kids access to the Internet, and involving them as direct feedback into the the education process by allowing them to decide its direction to some degree themselves, see: Sudbury Schools. And there are others which aim to amplify the existing propaganda in education to bring about a dystopian "Brave New World". [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:21AM
Why is "wired" still in business? Maybe it's true like in that other post re: social blahblah - bullshitting never goes out of business?
(Score: 1) by meustrus on Wednesday August 26 2015, @03:13AM
Plenty of doctors' offices etc. still have Wired magazine subscriptions. And thank God. The alternative is either Sports Illustrated or Better Homes and Gardens.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by meustrus on Wednesday August 26 2015, @03:05AM
Reminded me a lot of Montessori. Then I saw the timeline of "Alternative Schools" and...well there sure hasn't been a lot of activity on that front, has there? It's funny though. All this talk about technology in schools and I think this article has got it right. Even though the author takes the history for granted and has no appreciation for the scientific basis of Montessori. Not like anybody else does either. Why is it that the whole field of education is so totally lacking in evidence-based policy anyway? Why are politicians and tech billionaires deciding how to reform education instead of scientists?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?