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

371–380 of 559 posts

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#371

Post by fraserphysics »

shimman wrote: post #124
fraserphysics wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I signed up for software carpentry instructor training at the SciPy conference in 2015. I expected to learn about their curriculum. Instead, I found that they taught pedagogy. There were articles to read in advance. I should have taken that class before I spent 15 years teaching at university rather than afterwards.

What aspects of pedagogy did you find most relevant? It does seem sad that in our industry, one where practical learning is necessary, that learning how to learn isn't really taught well. Often the worse ways to learn are those that seemed to be encouraged, mostly because it's the easiest way to monetize content.

It was so long ago that I've forgotten most of it. I was impressed that it was based on evidence based literature. Here is a link to the training now https://carpentries.org/instructor-training/ I am disappointed that I don't see a reading list.

Unless it's changed since I was active, The Carpentries does not monetize content.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#373

Post by tdb7893 »

rustcleaner wrote: post #313

One revolution that backfired massively: the departure from phonics reading to some sort of contextual whole-word one, where students were reprimanded for trying to sound the word out. By extension the loss of basic Greek & Latin has had a terrible impact; at least teach just enough to learn that most English words are compounds of simpler Greek/Latin words strung together (like German's adjectiveadjectiveadjectiveno…

My brother took Latin and I took French in high school and I found French to be much more actually useful in improving my vocabulary and understanding. I went to a Catholic high school and we learned some snippets of Koine Greek as part of studying the Bible. None of these were time effective at learning English at all and more English classes would've been much more effective (especially at the level most high schoolers are at).

My high school was more classical than most and it was not a better way to teach English.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#374

Post by rahimnathwani »

lnenad wrote: post #321
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #265

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education yet, which basically argues for a revolution in the other direction - get rid of almost all schooling because almost none of it passes a sane cost benefit analysis. It's very well researched, and the author has a long track record of being happy when he moves people even marginally towards his views. The praise here for Direct Instruction is…

I cannot imagine coming to a place that has a reputation of having higher educated people, and presenting that education is a waste of time. All research has some levels of agenda behind it, and it would be very easy to steer anything the author presents into a direction he wishes. On the contrary, literally every country on earth benefited greatly from education and the results are very visible in all aspects of hum…

My reading of it is not that Bryan thinks education (aka learning) is a waste of time, but that much of what we call 'education' in the US, particularly with respect to higher education (4 year colleges) is just signaling. Very little is being learned. It's just a very expensive and time-consuming way to sort people based on skills and attributes they already had.

Of course, the above paragraph isn't perfectly accurate. It's based on my impression of a book I read a couple of years ago, polluted with my own biases, other things I've read on the topic etc.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#375

Post by Neikius »

hdctambien wrote: post #271
Dfiesl wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im definitely in this camp. It seems like the biggest frustration from the teachers’ part with modern schooling is lack of engagement from the students. This is clearly telling us something. Sure some students have not even had their basic needs met, which is a separate issue. But those that have and still don’t engage tells us that their brains have probably assigned the information they’re receiving as “having litt…

In highschool, at least, you have to somehow elevate the meaning of your subject to be more interesting than the movie theatre/concert/video game system they have in their pocket. Kids will make eye contact with you and nod along as you teach, but they are wearing air pods and can't hear you over their spotify playlist. Im not sure I can be more interesting than Taylor Swift, Call of Duty, MrBeast, and texting with f…

Just ban the phones from schools. Because with that you cannot compete. Instant gratification vs hard work?

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#376

Post by conductr »

teiferer wrote: post #299
conductr wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I'm speaking of disciplinary action that is home/family based and can just be rooted in the expectation of high effort. When this parenting is established young, the kid knows no other way. They know they have to participate. They generally don't want to disappoint their family. Everything is setup so disciplinary action should seldom need to occur and instead the opportunities for academic intervention are truly identified in a timely fashion and can receive a targeted solution (tutoring, different teaching style, etc).

Some families will decide to push harder, A's and AP classes are required, full effort in academics at all times. Some families will decide every assignment has to be completed and A's and B's with maybe an occasional C in a very hard class is acceptable and the student is left some bandwidth for social/non-academics. Some families take a simple pass/fail, as long as the kid finds a way to pass then they are good. So on...

The throughline is the parents are involved and monitoring the whole school year. Is homework being completed, how are your grades, talk to teachers when needed, etc. I feel this basic parenting is no longer common, parents want to blame the education system without taking any responsibility.

Sure we can incrementally improve education along the way, but we have to have a good faith expectation and base line of participation as a foundation or nothing will work.

Kids lose their curiosity because they witness their peers goofing around and not taking it serious. So if my friend's parents don't care and he's allowed to goof around instead of putting in the work, then I get a sense of FOMO or feel like a sucker for putting in the work. So everything devolves to the lowest common denominator. There's a lot more group dynamics and kids obviously don't know what is best for them, so adults really need to tell them what is expected. It's amazing how quickly a class elevates when you remove 1-2 distractions and likewise when the whole class is engaged and there is no distraction to begin with, it's ideal.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#377

Post by Neikius »

roysting wrote: post #237
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…

Have you ever heard of John Taylor Gatto? If not, you may want to look into his books. They will help you realize that schooling and learning/education are mutually exclusive and even that schooling is counterproductive because its primary objectives are hostile to the objectives of education, real learning as a human. The worst people in the world created schooling and the education system for their own narrow, self…

School system was created to increase productivity.

It is also and equalizer. Unschooled kids from bad backgrounds now start even lower.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#378

Post by gaoshan »

There are existing successful education models that we could and should borrow from. Instead we keep trying to reinvent things as if we and we alone must be the ones to develop it. I don't even think it's that much of a mystery, it's just that the potential costs cause our system to refuse to head down that path and as a result we get what we deserve, so to speak.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#379

Post by Silamoth »

rustcleaner wrote: post #322
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…

Structural misandry. I'm telling you the Zoomer/Alpha boys have taken notice and are checking out of the system. Chickens coming home to roost in a few more decades as the West goes longhouse and gets economically pounded by the East. I was an early bird in MGTOW, but now it's common knowledge and operating strategy for most young men. Boys don't owe society squat, and now they know it!

MGTOW nonsense most certainly is not the common mode of operation for young men. Where are you getting this idea?

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#380

Post by amluto »

simiones wrote: post #363
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Classical Latin [has] extremely complex grammars compared to any modern European language …I know almost nothing about this topic, but this doesn’t line up with what people who know Latin have told me. They’ve frequently cited the language’s simple grammar as something they like about it.

(Classical) Latin nouns have one of 3 genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), and each noun has 12 possible forms (6 cases * 2 numbers); pronouns follow similar rules; and the adjectives modifying a noun have to agree with it in case, gender, and number (so typically a single adjective has 36 possible forms). Verbs vary by voice (active/passive), mood (indicative, subjunctive, imperative, infinitive, participle, g…

> All modern Romance languages have universally merged or dropped various of these features.

Wikipedia informs me that Romanian is a Romance language and has retained some of it. Also, the Slavic languages have largely retained most or all of what you’re describing, although they are not classified as Romance languages.

Post reply on HN