I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#111

Post by fraserphysics » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:04 AM UTC

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 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.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#112

Post by WarmWash » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:07 AM UTC

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #95

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…

I will bet that the number of adults who ever engage in coloring or painting as adults is extremely small. Probably less than the number of full time scientists, engineers, finance professionals etc. Yet no one complains that we are forcing students to do art in school, even when many students don't particularly like doing art. Why? Because we recognize that developing general artistic ability in humans is important,…

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 short, starving artists.

There is also the whole thing where art is an abstract concept with a subjective definition, and a solar cell sporting new tech with 33% efficiency objectively being better than one with 24% efficiency.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#113

Post by freeopinion » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:11 AM UTC

bigthymer wrote: post #46

freeopinion wrote: post #10

IMO, the best questions around revolutionizing school should address whether children should be coerced into learning something. It seems obvious to me that the answer should be yes. So the follow ups should be figuring out how to move a student from an unwilling participant to a willing participant. I think about three strata of students. The stubbornly unwilling, the coaxable, and the eager. It is pretty easy to de…

Having multiple parallel tracks for different types of students is controversial. Schooling tends to be cyclical with periods with more tracking is popular shifting to periods of less tracking and more classroom mixing. It really depends on what you want to optimize for. More tracking benefits the highest achievers. Less tracking raises the bottom and the average but at the cost of not maximizing the outcome of the t…

Do you find it controversial to have different tracks for Geometry, Swim, and Orchestra students? These are different types of students.

Arithmetic, Algebra, and Statistics are different classes should be taught separately.

"Please wake up and take your headphones off and answer my question even though you don't plan on passing any of your classes" and History are different classes with different types of students. Trying to conduct both classes at the same time using the same teacher is folly. You will be forced to abandon one or both of the students. You might argue that you should abandon them it turns every other day so they both get something out of the class. But that means they will each get half or less out of the class than they would have if you separated the classes. It is highly likely that you will frustrate both students to the point of impediment.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#114

Post by anon-3988 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:12 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #20

freeopinion wrote: post #10

IMO, the best questions around revolutionizing school should address whether children should be coerced into learning something. It seems obvious to me that the answer should be yes. So the follow ups should be figuring out how to move a student from an unwilling participant to a willing participant. I think about three strata of students. The stubbornly unwilling, the coaxable, and the eager. It is pretty easy to de…

> I think about three strata of students. The stubbornly unwilling, the coaxable, and the eager. 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.

> 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

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#115

Post by erelong » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:14 AM UTC

It's really just education - as well as industry - is over-regulated so there's no competition, ergo no cheaper higher quality offerings at a higher quantity

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#116

Post by mc3301 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:14 AM UTC

questionmark808 wrote: post #15

Just as you should train for your body type and genetics, there's should be an assessment with incremental pivoting as to what and how you learn best that emphasizes your idiosyncrasies. Bias against boys should also be noted. They get reprimanded a LOT more and teachers are a LOT more forgiving to girls. Men falling out of the system is not by chance.

Where is this?

In Japan, at least in primary school, boys can get away with anything, as "boys will be boys." Girls must take care of others (first) and themselves (second). If girls misbehave, write sloppily, forget things, and so on, it is much more addressed than if a a boy does the same.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#117

Post by wjamesg » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:16 AM UTC

pianopatrick wrote: post #99

Ya know, one way we could "revolutionize schooling" that would make sense for our modern world is to set up schools that make sense when both parents work. Like have school open from 7 - 6 with the same amount of teaching but lots more recess so that parents can drop their kids off in the morning and pick them up after work. Also, have schools available in the summer so parents can drop the kids off while they go off…

7-6? Why even have kids

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#118

Post by cortesoft » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:16 AM UTC

fhe wrote: post #110

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…

based on your description, one reasonable way to 'revolutionize' school might simply allow people (who don't want to be there) to leave.

They were already at a University. None of the students were required to be there. They all had the ability to just leave.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#119

Post by cortesoft » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:18 AM UTC

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…

> Over time I learned a lot of tricks and hacks to function in the technical world and perform reliably.

Honestly, these are the most important things to learn. I spend a lot of time with my kids talking about ways to get your brain to do what you want.

Re: I'm skeptical about efforts to revolutionize schooling

#120

Post by cortesoft » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 2:19 AM UTC

erelong wrote: post #115

It's really just education - as well as industry - is over-regulated so there's no competition, ergo no cheaper higher quality offerings at a higher quantity

There is no regulation around education, as long as you don't claim to provide any accreditation or degree.