Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#191

Post by DanielRibeiro » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 11:14 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #55

_delirium wrote: post #3

I suppose it's a Cato blog post, but I was hoping for a more interesting discussion than just a random call for private education, with a market-will-solve it assertion. People learning at different paces and on their own is a fairly interesting problem highlighted here, but I think it's wishful thinking to claim that the perfect answer is already known. It's not entirely clear to me that private schools would cater…

You seem to be picturing "ACME Education" creating schools in the model of factories under some scary privatization scheme. In fact, the current "public" model of centralized control, standardized curriculum, and cookie-cutter learning objectives is based on an antiquated understanding of human development, social systems, and motivation. In fact, by forcing a child to endure hours of boredom and conformity it prepar…

This ACME education and its origins is very well discussed on this famous RSA video "Changing Education Paradigms ": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#192

Post by dkokelley » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 11:57 PM UTC

derleth wrote: post #182

dkokelley wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is programming a basic skill? To me, programming is more of a trade than a basic skill. People get by just fine without knowing a thing about programming. When students can't read, write, and do simple mathematics, then they have trouble later in life. I believe logic and basic computing (this is a folder, that is a keyboard, etc.) are necessary. In fact, these form the foundation for programming later, but how c…

> Why is programming a basic skill? For the same reason being able to write English[1] well is: If you can use English effectively, you can better influence the people you have to deal with. If you can write code effectively, you can often find ways to better influence the computers you have to deal with. [1] (Replace 'English' with any natural language of your choice, if you want.)

Programming is not as ubiquitous as you or I would like to think. In fact, I would say that most people use less than 10% of a computer's capacity at work or home (not to say they don't max out memory or tax the CPU, but that they don't 'unlock' the computer to its potential).

Also, if you can tune engines effectively, you can better influence the cars you drive, and most people use one every day. Shouldn't auto shop be up there with programming?

I don't say that to knock auto shop. I want to reinforce the idea that 'programming' is not as important a skill as reading, writing, and math. Programming is a trade skill that builds on the concepts of reading, writing, and math. It's an advanced skill, not a basic one.

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#193

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 12:39 AM UTC

18pfsmt wrote: post #132

hugh3 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a simple thought experiment. Look at all the education systems around the world, and ask if the ones with the best results are private or public. That's not a simple thought experiment, it's a massive data-collecting exercise. I'm not sure if there are any countries with wholly-private education systems, are there? Still, there are many countries (the UK and Australia spring to mind) where private schools play…

But faced with a choice between that and a chaotic American public school where the primary goal appears to be stopping the students from shooting each other, I'll take the spoon feeding and straw hats any day. Given the fact that the US is a country of over 300 million people, and you have heard only a few stories of shootings, I find this comment extremely hyperbolic. I went to private and public schools in 3 diffe…

I think he's right. Actual shootings are certainly extremely rare, but that doesn't mean that the main goal of the schools can't be to stop them. School systems tend to be highly irrational like that.

My high school was fairly strict on rules and regulations, and my time and movement was managed and regimented to an extent that I've never experienced before or sense. Much of this was due to misguided safety rules. That was before Columbine, and from what I hear things have become far worse now.

Such might be reasonable if shootings were a serious threat, but the aren't, as you point out, so it's basically just wasted.

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#194

Post by stretchwithme » Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 12:42 AM UTC

chernevik wrote: post #109

_delirium wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a possible outcome, I'm just not convinced of its probability. Unless the government enforces equal prices at all the private schools, via some sort of fixed tradeable credits scheme, I would expect the most affordable schools to be those that cater to a large proportion of the population in a cost-effective and fairly standardized way, and that those would be by far the most popular schools. Essentially, that…

"my guess is that the vast majority would opt for a cost-effective, fairly standardized large education provider" Maybe, but we can observe: 1) intense competition for admission to the highest tier colleges 2) intense efforts by many inner city residents to place their kids in charter / special focus schools 3) strong correlations between perceived school quality and housing values All of which suggests that many par…

One thing that is unfortunate about the public system. If you're poor and want high quality education for your kid, you have to live in an expensive neighborhood. Or pay for education twice. There's no way to sacrifice on location and put all your resources into education.

Its quite arbitrary to tie these two things together. Sort of like tying which restaurant you can patronize to the car you drive. Or what sporting event you can attend to the clothes you buy. Except way worse.

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#195

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 12:42 AM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #86

jshen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private schools will lead to a marketing driven education system that preys on peoples ignorance. Here's a simple thought experiment. Look at all the education systems around the world, and ask if the ones with the best results are private or public.

Your argument is essentially "marketing is bad". Which is a shadow argument for "capitalism is bad". Take an ad for the Macbook Air. It shows a stylish person happily using the Air to do something fun. Now consider an ad for a private school that shows a child happily benefitting from something he/she learned at the school being advertised. Maybe the ad shows a graduate getting accepted into a prestigious college or…

> Let's face it, no matter how you view ads, if you think ads are bad then the only solution is for the government to start its own version of 'consumer reports' and to publish a simple list of products ranked according to attributes. Hardly a remotely practical or plausible solution.

That is an extremely black-and-white view of the world. I think ads are generally not useful, and the small use they do provide is vastly overwhelmed by their negative attributes. I fully support truth-in-advertising laws, but I would never go as far as your proposed solution. Poor, emotion-laden advertisements are really due to fundamental flaws in human psychology which will be there no matter what we do.

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#196

Post by w1ntermute » Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 12:51 AM UTC

klenwell wrote: post #75

sequoia wrote: post #50

I'm a parent of two who does NOT plan on putting his kids in public school because I think they won't be served well there (plan on "home schooling"). My 5yo uses Khan Academy and it seems to be great. Finally, I basically hate most aspects of public school. That said, I get sick of everyone piling on public school whenever something like this comes up. Public school is set to the following task: "take everyone , eve…

Well put. Finally, I basically hate most aspects of public school. I was ready to agree with this. But then I reflected. What I really hated were my rotten peers (and, to an extent, my rotten self) from around the start of junior high to the end of high school. They weren't horrible, mind you. Just middle-of-the-distribution-curve kids, with the inevitable psychopath or two. I don't think privatization is going to fi…

> They weren't horrible, mind you. Just middle-of-the-distribution-curve kids, with the inevitable psychopath or two. I don't think privatization is going to filter that out.

Why not? That's exactly what privatization would do. All you need to do is identify the average kids and psychopaths, give them a chance to redeem themselves, and if they don't, unceremoniously kick them out.

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#197

Post by bugsy » Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 1:12 AM UTC

Too short an article. That particular quote was called out and discussed here when the Khan Academy article was discussed previously.

It's a certain mindset that thinks this way. It reminds me of another discussion here where some people and a supporting article (http://geekfeminism.org/2010/08/10/restore-meritocracy-in-cs...) argued that it is unfair that some students have previous experience programming when they enter a CS program, therefore classes should be done in obscure (and thus pretty useless) languages that no one has heard of, in order to equally handicap everyone.

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#198

Post by grandalf » Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 1:33 AM UTC

timsally wrote: post #159

grandalf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is essentially "marketing is bad". Which is a shadow argument for "capitalism is bad". Take an ad for the Macbook Air. It shows a stylish person happily using the Air to do something fun. Now consider an ad for a private school that shows a child happily benefitting from something he/she learned at the school being advertised. Maybe the ad shows a graduate getting accepted into a prestigious college or…

> Your argument is essentially "marketing is bad". Which is a shadow argument for "capitalism is bad". That's an outrageous claim. Take marketing of pharmaceuticals directly to patients. Unconscionable in my opinion (and many other first world countries agree). There are many limited cases where marketing is quite harmful. Indeed, we have reason to believe education is one of those cases. You simply need to examine t…

Where do you draw the line on pharmaceutical marketing?

Is it OK to market antidepressants? What about blood pressure or cholesterol medicine? Heartburn medicine? Asprin? Sunscreen? Toothpaste? Dentil floss? Athlete's foot spray?

Prescription meds are controlled such that a doctor must agree that the prescription is a good idea before the patient gets the drug. There have been instances found of conflict-of-interest-inducing quid pro quos between pharmaceutical companies and doctors, but it seems silly to blame the ad a patient saw for this. Most ads I've seen say "ask your doctor about x".

So what is the harm? What classes of remedies (drugs, procedures, OTC items) result in harmful ads?

Your complaint about education ads is interesting b/c you're bemoaning the phenomenon of people with a freshly minted college degree foolishly pursuing more education. If you are seriously worried about a highly educated segment of society being misled by a simple numerical trick like the one you describe, there must be no hope whatsoever for humanity if the only people we can trust to watch commercials are people with a Ph.D in stats.

If someone has not become well acquainted with the sorts of semi-misleading things mentioned in ads by the time he/she is an adult, something is seriously wrong, and the sort of paternalistic society needed to protect this person from him/herself is unacceptably oppressive to everyone else's freedom.

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#199

Post by derleth » Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 1:35 AM UTC

dkokelley wrote: post #192

derleth wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is programming a basic skill? For the same reason being able to write English[1] well is: If you can use English effectively, you can better influence the people you have to deal with. If you can write code effectively, you can often find ways to better influence the computers you have to deal with. [1] (Replace 'English' with any natural language of your choice, if you want.)

Programming is not as ubiquitous as you or I would like to think. In fact, I would say that most people use less than 10% of a computer's capacity at work or home (not to say they don't max out memory or tax the CPU, but that they don't 'unlock' the computer to its potential). Also, if you can tune engines effectively, you can better influence the cars you drive, and most people use one every day. Shouldn't auto shop…

Education isn't about making people average. It's about trying to elevate them a bit above. I wouldn't be averse to adding auto shop in (except for the practical matter that modern cars aren't as friendly to shade-tree mechanics as cars of decades ago) but I still think computer programming is more important.

It's more important because, frankly, being able to use a computer really well means you can do things the companies in charge don't want you doing. Disabling DRM, making backups of the software you own, blocking virus-laden ads, and so on, all the things I won't put up with being unable to do but the average person just kind of suffers with, like a cow in a thunderstorm unable to find shelter.

Re: Could You Modify It ‘To Stop Students From Becoming This Advanced?’

#200

Post by RickHull » Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 1:40 AM UTC

jshen wrote: post #134

mkn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is essentially "marketing is bad". Which is a shadow argument for "capitalism is bad". While your formulation is deliberately obtuse, the underlying sentiment can be quite damning for a certain kind of free market fan-boy, the kind who insists that buyers in a market are rational in some individual or even collective sense, that they somehow optimize their own happiness or utility function. That notion…

"the kind who insists that buyers in a market are rational in some individual or even collective sense, that they somehow optimize their own happiness or utility function." This is my core point as well, thanks for taking the time to lay out a better case than I did. It's rather shocking once you realize that the human brain is not rational in the way we often think it is. I find this fact to completely destroy most…

Note that this criticism does not apply to the Austrian school of thought. In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises establishes that humans reveal their preferences through action. There are no hangups about whether these preferences are "rational" or free of mistakes.