Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

scotthyoung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 559 posts

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#181

Post by WarmWash »

bawolff wrote: post #155
WarmWash wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Math is a tool for solving problems, and people will do work to create value that they will share with you for helping them solve a problem which will ultimately create even more value. In short, math is a powerhouse tool for carrying society forward. Art, while cool to look at and experience, has a pretty low efficacy in terms of "motivating people to do work, or removing obstacles, to carry society forward" In shor…

> Art, while cool to look at and experience, has a pretty low efficacy in terms of "motivating people to do work, or removing obstacles, to carry society forward" Idk, the soviets didn't invest in socialist realism propaganda for nothing. Less sarcastically, art has had an outsized influence on society and culture. Take any social movement you want, and there was probably some novel or work of art that galvanized it.

My argument isn't that art doesn't have an impact, my argument is that the artists to impact ratio is insane.

10,000 artists in, one $20k work of art out.

Whereas something like the engineer is closer to

5 engineers in, $500k of work out (and even that is pretty conservative)

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#182

Post by RealityVoid »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #140
hunterpayne wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are projecting. Those things are true of teachers who worked the best for you specifically. In some classes, these can work. Unless you have a high tracked class of kids with engaged and pro-education parents, it won't. It also tends to work better with kids in a specific age range, generally 10 to 14. But its not universal and don't project it into public policy that tries to maximize educational outcomes for th…

Those things were not true of the teachers who worked the best for me specifically. I cite them based on stuff I've read during 40-50 years of reading about education and what actually works and how it works. People do not, as a general rule, "learn" stuff by people telling them stuff. The retention rate is incredibly low, the comprehension is even lower. Now, it is often the case that good learning environments in o…

You should look up "direct instruction" or mastery based learning. I was in agreement with you, mostly, but self-discovery has limits. I recently think this isn't the "optimal" way to teach, sometimes it's counterproductive. There might not _be_ an optimal way to teach and it might all be situational.

> People do not, as a general rule, "learn" stuff by people telling them stuff.

Yes. Recalling stuff and applying stuff is how we learn.

I strongly suggest you look into Math Academy and just bowse Justin Skycak's books on their method. I think they are right in many many aspects perhaps except the behavioral motivation ones. I think kids going through school need to either build self motivation or have someone build it for them, and I feel that is the gap in MA.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#183

Post by RealityVoid »

keithnz wrote: post #168
necovek wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never taught myself, so take this with a grain of salt (though I do think it is extremely hard to do well). I did, however, have a teacher who taught an advanced subject and I found his instruction so good that I did not have to bother with homework and assignments if I was happy with B grades — as I wasn't particularly motivated, only occassionaly did I put in the effort for an A. I could, however, see the level o…

schooling has to be designed around "average" teachers. Having someone who is gifted at teaching is great, but there wouldn't be many teachers if that was the standard. I often think when people idealize what schooling should be like it always seems like they are imagining teachers who are gifted.

Yes, as always, we like people to be good at their jobs instead of being bad at their jobs.

But, I think teaching skills, juuuust like any other skills can be taught and improved. So if we want good teachers and educators we need to build them up, not just relie on a few good ones to carry the day.

I personally reject the notion of competency in this as a matter of "giftedness", as something you either have or don't have. I think it's something you cam build. It's something you can teach. But you need to specifically aim for it.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#185

Post by obscurette »

satisfice wrote: post #88
tombert wrote: post #70

I'm not the first person to state this, but it bears repeating: nearly everyone thinks that they know the right way to teach, and most people don't. I'm not exempting myself from this. I was an adjunct lecturer for two semesters. I did have some fun with it, but it was way harder than I thought it would be, and I think that university is probably considerably easier than elementary or high school. I had students that…

I was one of those students. I refused to do homework after the age of 11 (I cited the 13th amendment). Quit school as soon as it was legal to do so. I wrote about this in Secrets of a Buccaneer-Scholar. Now approaching my 60th birthday, I feel certain I was suffering from undiagnosed ADHD. You can't force a brain to think what you want it to think. I couldn't even force myself to think what I wanted to think. I bega…

Sounds too familiar. But I survived at school and I think that it helped a ton that I went to school at sixties (Soviet Union) – explicit teaching, homework and grades since age six, order in classrooms etc allowed me to practice handling my brain with babysteps since early age. If I look at classes my grandkids are put in – no way I'd survived in such chaotic and noisy environment with so few rules.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#186

Post by bigstrat2003 »

nostrademons wrote: post #134
anon-3988 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a real issue dividing kids up along these lines. I've found that virtually all young kids love to explore and learn things, and if anything schooling can extinguish this innate desire when it becomes a source of stress. This is a very bold claim. I don't think most kids are curious about the multiplication tables

The claim was that "virtually all young kids love to explore and learn things", not that "virtually all young kids love to explore and learn multiplication tables".

Sure. But the fact of the matter is that we must teach kids many diverse things, and most of them are going to be things that some (or even most) of the kids have no interest in learning. So one has to grapple with the question of how to teach kids who don't actually care about learning what you're teaching.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#187

Post by [deleted] »

necovek wrote: post #135
tombert wrote: post #70

I'm not the first person to state this, but it bears repeating: nearly everyone thinks that they know the right way to teach, and most people don't. I'm not exempting myself from this. I was an adjunct lecturer for two semesters. I did have some fun with it, but it was way harder than I thought it would be, and I think that university is probably considerably easier than elementary or high school. I had students that…

I never taught myself, so take this with a grain of salt (though I do think it is extremely hard to do well). I did, however, have a teacher who taught an advanced subject and I found his instruction so good that I did not have to bother with homework and assignments if I was happy with B grades — as I wasn't particularly motivated, only occassionaly did I put in the effort for an A. I could, however, see the level o…

[deleted]

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#188

Post by intended »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #164
Animats wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know what works: a 1:5 staff to student ratio. At that ratio, method matters less. Beyond that, it's a productivity problem.

Yep, known as Bloom's Two Sigma Problem[1]. Like most hard problems we know the solution, but lack the appetite to implement. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem

Hey Bloom’s 2 sigma problem. So far, (nearly) all conversations about education on HN I’ve seen, have had a naturally point at which Bloom’s 2s should be introduced.

Humanity is now preparing students with a 20 year time horizon, while tech changes much faster. If this was agriculture, the industry would be doomed by that horizon mismatch.

We really need more teachers, if we want the median citizen to be better off.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#189

Post by Telaneo »

BeetleB wrote: post #90
bwhiting2356 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to convince kids why they should learn advanced abstract math, beyond what is necessary to calculate the tip on a restaurant bill. The number of high school students who will use advanced math beyond high school is very small, but those that do will have high impact, which is both in society's interest and their own interest as high earners. The kids that study and apply themselves, I don't think it's so mu…

> It's hard to convince kids why they should learn advanced abstract math, beyond what is necessary to calculate the tip on a restaurant bill. When I was just a bit younger, I detested what I'm about to say, but now know as the "reality". Your argument is focused on rationalism. You're trying to give kids/teenagers real world reasons to learn something. People are rarely motivated by reason. They are motivated by emo…

> [1] Think about all the useless things kids can be good at. Did they have to rationalize why they should learn them?

'It's fun' is a pretty compelling reason for both kids and adults to learn certain things, but you can't just decide what's fun and what isn't. Maths rarely gets to have that reason (and when it does, it applies to people for whom this entire problem isn't relevant).

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#190

Post by stickfigure »

ckw wrote: post #177
SubmarineClub wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turns out that when you level the playing field, girls do better than boys. Why is it that when boys/men where outperforming and out-earning women, people were willing to move heaven and earth to correct this terrible injustice, but now when outcomes have reversed (for years at this point) it's considered acceptable to say "Welp, that's just how it goes. Boys just aren't good enough." Hmmm...almost like, it's no…

Approximate shares of undergraduate enrollment by sex: Year Male Female 1970 58% 42% 1975 53% 47% 1980 48% 52% 1985 46% 54% 1990 45% 55% 1995 44.5% 55.5% 2000 43.9% 56.1% 2005 43.3% 56.7% 2010 43.0% 57.0% 2015 43.6% 56.4% 2020 42.7% 57.3% 2025 42.7% 57.3% So men have been in the minority for at least 46 years, and the skew is as large as it was in 1970, but reversed.

This is true and interesting but it's also incomplete. Men still dominate most STEM degrees, and unlike law or business it doesn't seem to be evening out over time. I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw from this.
Post reply on HN