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

291–300 of 559 posts

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#291

Post by bluGill »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #194
bluGill wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schools do better than home schooling. Those kids constantly do great on tests but it doesn't take long to figure out they are lacking socially. I don't know how to teach socialization other than kids figure it out, but I'm open to the idea.

Some of those kids are lacking socially. It's not 100% by any means. The thing is that if you are home schooling your kids, you have to be intentional about socializing them in a way that you simply don't have to if you have them in a formal school setting. Obviously, some parents are going to fail at that but not all will.

Not 100% is claimed often, but I have personally never seen an exception.

Maybe some exist but I don't know of any

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#292

Post by bluGill »

rimliu wrote: post #270
bluGill wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until someone can show a real biological difference we should level the playing field. We do know boys mature later which may be reason to not level the field completely, but we should still not allow that as an excuse. If someone shows another difference I will have to think in depth about the details before I can comment.

So you claim that biolgically males and females are the same?

For the purposes of 'intelligent' which is the topic here.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#293

Post by darkerside »

h317 wrote: post #222
teiferer wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> teach someone who really isn't interested in learning. This is key. If you are interested in a subject, the learning will come more or less automatically. Different ways of teaching still have substantial impact on how efficiently you learn, but you automatically gravitate towards the more efficient methods since you want to learn this out of interest in the subject. Without interest, this is an uphill battle. And…

I think the challenge that teachers have is that being “interested “ in something is a skill in itself. I never played a clarinet when I was a kid, maybe I would have like it, but never did that. If we assume that being interested is a function of household income/structure/ happiness than things get even worse.

Teaching is a lot like (a certain style of) management. You learn what motivates someone, make the connection between that and the subject matter at hand, and make it accessible for them to get to the next level. The rest takes care of itself.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#294

Post by bradleyjg »

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 had students that I knew were smart that I was forced to fail. They would grasp the subjects quickly when I was speaking, they would ask good questions during class...and then they would simply never study or do the homework I assigned them, and then they would do terrible on tests and I'd be stuck having to give them a bad grade. They were smart students, but they didn't want to be there.

I think you need to go a level up. Forget the people that flunked the class. Did the people that get good grades learn anything? Really? Do you think they still know it?

Was learning the point for anyone or any institution involved?

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#296

Post by winterbourne »

bluGill wrote: post #146
madrox wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with saying socializing is one of the primary goals is that schools leave kids to figure it out on their own. Hard to know how schools are performing at that goal when it is going unmeasured.

Schools do better than home schooling. Those kids constantly do great on tests but it doesn't take long to figure out they are lacking socially. I don't know how to teach socialization other than kids figure it out, but I'm open to the idea.

Homeschooled kids can socialize outside of homeschool and be perfectly well-adjusted. There's something to be said for avoiding the hierarchical social structure present in schools.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#297

Post by sensanaty »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #167
kitchi wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on what you mean by "school" I'd disagree. Voluntary tertiary education makes sense, not all chosen professions may need or benefit from a degree. But primary education needs to be a requirement for every child. Coming from a country with a large illiterate population, it's easy to see how hard their lives are compared to folks with an education but similar socio-economic backgrounds. Now obviously implemen…

Problem is when one mixes kids who don’t want to be there with one’s that do, they all suffer. Makes a lot of teacher not want to be there too! The schools also have little interest in spending time and money on the higher performing students. They teach the minimum and focus resources on the failing ones to raise school averages. Currently, tertiary education is where a lot of real learning takes starts to happen.

If it was up to me (back then), I wouldn't have even done primary school. I'd wager that the vast majority of kids wouldn't want to do school, because obviously, but that's why we don't let kids make important decisions like those for themselves.

Looking back I am extremely appreciative of my time in school as much as I might've not liked it at the time, and my education has undoubtedly made me into a more intelligent and capable person in pretty much every conceivable way. Especially high school, pretty much everyone I know who's a high school dropout (and doesn't come from a wealthy family) is much worse off than their peers who finished it.

As for tertiary education, that is already completely optional. I attended university for 1 year, said "This ain't for me", and things worked out just fine for me.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#298

Post by AndrewDucker »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #235
ChaitanyaSai wrote: post #228

Schooling has been trying for ever to institutionalize and standardize learning without really understanding what learning is. In that absence, we've focused on learning proxies, which are tests. And tests resulted in a focus on mechanics. Meaning was and is an intangible so it got leached out. Everything school does starts at the wrong end of meaning > motiviation > mechanics > measurement. It is possible to fix sch…

I don't fully understand your comment but I think an issue with schooling is that tests are the meaning of schools - that is, test results and graduating are the objective of an education. This is the disconnect I've always found growing up, I get told this is how you calculate angles, but besides the test, there's never the why . Granted this is a bad example because at least that one had a practical, real life appl…

"test results and graduating are the objective of an education"

No. The objective is for you to learn a specific topic. Tests are how we tell if you have learned it. Graduating is proof that you have learned it.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#299

Post by teiferer »

conductr wrote: post #229
h317 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the challenge that teachers have is that being “interested “ in something is a skill in itself. I never played a clarinet when I was a kid, maybe I would have like it, but never did that. If we assume that being interested is a function of household income/structure/ happiness than things get even worse.

We shouldn’t force interest. But have high expectations across the board and just realize disinteresting topics will just take more effort and or be more time. It’s virtually impossible to make every subject interesting for every student. The interest, at least through high school, should come from disciplinary action. And not from the school, from parents. Bad grades should result in punishment. It’s should be the p…

> It’s virtually impossible to make every subject interesting for every student.

It its full generality that's probably true, but we probably don't fully appreciate how the classical school system kills interest. I've met many 6 year olds that were so curious about the world, you could tell them stuff about any subject and they would soak it up and ask for more. 2 years later, shaped by a school system that focuses on grading and pressure, and their interest in anything had tanked. It was very sad to see.

Maybe trying to avoid killing that natural curiosity would be a useful step in improving things.

> The interest, at least through high school, should come from disciplinary action.

I don't know if you forgot a negation somewhere. That's completely unsuitable to create interest, it fosters hate with a passion for subjects and school in general. I know it did for me.

Post reply on HN