Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests • Hacker News Board

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#71

Post by pitt1980 » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 3:51 PM UTC

larrys wrote: post #52

jellicle wrote: post #19

Sigh. You need both. The reality is that there's a lot of book-learning in the world. You're never going to build a rocket to the moon by starting in your backyard with some sheet metal - your lifespan isn't long enough if you take that approach. You have to read books written by people who have gone before, and learn from their mistakes, which you can do at a far more rapid pace than you can by making all those mist…

"Before I get downvoted into oblivion" Why is it always necessarily to add this? It's like "I apologize in advance but I'm going to insult you". As an aside I was wondering this morning if people who down vote read an entire comment or downvote on the first negative thing they don't like, disagree with etc. If that is the case you would think that putting your last sentence (sans the bigdio) would suffice as a prophy…

people say this because outside the mainstream thoughts do get downvoted alot on this board.

which is maybe better than letting trolls take over, I'm kind of agnostic about it

but alternative viewpoints are often dismissed here

(only example I can readily think of http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3460572 , but I feel like I see it all the time)

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#72

Post by DasIch » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 3:53 PM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #30

I agree with the article and would go further. In the modern era of information availability and the incredibly high quality of online courses and resources, school is obsolete for all but the really dumb kids that just aren't motivated because their parents are stupid or on drugs.

Schools have many goals and education is but one of them and even education doesn't just mean reading textbooks, viewing videos and being able to reproduce that.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#73

Post by excuse-me » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 3:54 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #62

exDM69 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a small cramped apartment, but I'd really like to do some wood works. So I bought some balsa wood and a few small tools to do some miniature models. It's not like doing real carpentry but will do until I get myself a shack to fit a band saw in.

Exactly. And since not everyone has the luxury of his private workshop, I really support that schools should provide that. I'm only affraid that in a world where 8 year olds are still forbidden to use real sicorrs you're gonna have a rough ride in order to do so...

We got a box of those kindergarten scissors in grad school!

Although there was a theoretical astrophysics group who probably shouldn't have been allowed crayons without careful supervision

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#74

Post by scott_s » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 3:56 PM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #54

krschultz wrote: post #13

'We walked into an empty room that once was the metal shop. It was perfect. I could imagine it having tools and materials and workbenches. I could imagine groups of curious kids being active, social, and mobile. ' When I was in 6th grade, they let us use a spot welder and press brake. I still have the box I made out of folded sheet metal from that time. We also had to make a little container out of folded sheet metal…

Part of this is just a reflection of the changing economy. Shop classes were funded when there was a demand in our economy for people who made things. Now that we've outsourced the making of things to China, there's no perceived need for learning how things are made anymore; they just get made , somewhere out of sight, and when they break we throw them away and buy new ones. This is a strangely infantile way for a so…

The US still makes plenty of things. They're just not made by humans.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#75

Post by excuse-me » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 3:57 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #7

cryptoz wrote: post #4

I remember taking a standardized test in public elementary school in the US (I think this was the Iowa series). At the end of one section I finished early, I counted the number of questions and was planning on finding out some basic stats on the questions. We hear "pencils down", and so the break period comes around. I comply, and the teacher collects our tests. I then picked up my pencil again and started doing a bu…

Reminds me of my primary school's request to my parents that they stop me from having access to books at home as it was making me difficult to teach.

Wouldn't normally post a youtube link but the famous Bill Hick's "what are you reading FOR" story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvs2g5Nj0NI

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#76

Post by gavinlynch » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 3:59 PM UTC

kbolino wrote: post #43

macspoofing wrote: post #15

Yes, they should be. It also would be nice if they had personalized attention of highly qualified education professionals, as well. But they don't. The unions, bureaucracy, politics, and funding is what it is.

I think you are unwittingly peddling an insidious idea that may be just as bad, if not worse, than standardized testing. A "highly qualified education professional" is a disinterested drone whose only accomplishments were meeting the arcane state requirements for a teaching certificate. If you're really lucky, they might have been adept at stringing together a bunch of useless "research" conclusions into incoherent p…

I agree with you on the academia aspect, and it sounds like you are referring mostly to higher education, right? Or else, why would we want those from academia teaching our children in middle school and high school.

"intelligence, patience, curiosity, and creativity"

Are those really the qualities of a good teacher? In my mind, I don't really care of the teacher is curious or intelligent. I just want them to know how to deliver information to my child in the most efficient way possible. It would be nice if the children were engaged, and if the teacher had a clever way to even make it "fun" at times, great. But it's not a prerequisite.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#77

Post by ktizo » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 4:00 PM UTC

bluekeybox wrote: post #57

waterlesscloud wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty much why you have to have standardized tests. Subpar teachers like this one. You couldn't possibly trust someone like that to make any sort of valid evaluation of her students.

I think you actually have a good point there.

I'm not so sure... The standardised tests don't actually weed out crap teachers as they can just teach to the test, and they do a lot to hurt the effectiveness of good teachers.

Also a lot of the motivation of the teacher who was annoyed with my parents was that I was causing problems in tests due to being interested in stuff well outside the domain of what would be taught in class.

Set tests largely test how good you are at those set tests, but most problems you will encounter in the real world are unbounded by a curriculum and the ability to recall stuff you have very recently read, while useful, is not a particularly good measure of wider ability.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#78

Post by shasta » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 4:01 PM UTC

CognitiveLens wrote: post #38

raganwald wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writer's complaint is daft. The purpose is to test if you can read a passage and comprehend it. Has nothing to do with microscopes. From my understanding of cognitive science, the question asked is deeply flawed if you want to test comprehension without testing knowledge of microscopes. One approach to answering questions like this is to build a little model in your head of what is being described. You then answe…

It is a reading comprehension question. Read the text provided: "To avoid crushing the glass slide when focusing, begin with the lens close to the specimen" The microscope lens should initially be placed close to the glass slide: C. To avoid breaking the glass slide when adjusting the focus.

So wait, you're saying the reason for the lens to begin close to the glass is the same reason the lens should begin close to the specimen? How did you come to that conclusion?

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#79

Post by stretchwithme » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

That photo says it all. Someone that's actually made something has confidence that cannot be instilled by positive, "you're a winner" affirmations. The individual is left with joy, not relief at having suffered through it.

The most important thing to be learned is that you can. And the most important thing that you can do is do.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#80

Post by peeters » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #45

CognitiveLens wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a reading comprehension question. Read the text provided: "To avoid crushing the glass slide when focusing, begin with the lens close to the specimen" The microscope lens should initially be placed close to the glass slide: C. To avoid breaking the glass slide when adjusting the focus.

I saw that too. It doesn’t change the fact that understanding of the domain strongly biases the result of answering the question. What you’re saying is that it is possible to answer the question while staring bewildered at a device you have never seen or interacted with. What I’m saying is that it is much easier to answer the question if you have hands-on experience. And I think what the author is saying is that we s…

> What you’re saying is that it is possible to answer the question while staring bewildered at a device you have never seen or interacted with.

The question is completely invalidated by knowledge of the domain. If anything, they should have constructed an artificial device that would guarantee the student didn't have domain knowledge that would allow them to bypass the necessary critical thinking:

To avoid smaggling the fizdoodle, make sure you begin with the smunderson in the upright position.

Q: Why should the smunderson start in the upright position?

A: To avoid smaggling the fizdoodle.

edit: s/being/begin/