Live data from Hacker News

The Dangerous Mr. Khan

nas.org

121–130 of 253 posts

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#121
It seems to be pretty nitpicking. He says things that plenty of educators would likely say in describing events such as, "as you'd imagine".

His point about FDR's viewpoint of Hitler's invasion of Poland is really weak and I just don't get it. Everything actually is relative. The Germans probably thought it was just as fine (if not moreso) to invade Poland as in the US Bush thought it was ok to invade Iraq. Of course history is written by the victors. Had Germany won, it would have been written as a good action from their perspective.

So in 15 minutes he doesn't dig into terribly much detail. Let's face it, even after a teacher spends an entire semester going over this with 8th graders, in 10 years time do they remember all the details? Details are something that can come after interest is solidified. Pushing details on 8th graders misses the larger point often as it is buried in dates, maps, names and such. If you get them hooked on the main point, they will find the details.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#122
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I welcome opposing opinions but this itself doesn't present both sides of the argument, nor any context to the one example given, and sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise.

> sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise. For the record, I like the Khan Academy and they do a lot of good; but I still think that's really unfair to say that given that the article brings up a really important point (regardless of its style of writing): Khan Academy history lessons are so abbreviated, that key, important points and figures in history are skipped. Why is this not good? One of the major key reas…

If they skip over something like Jim Crowe laws and someone notices, then that someone can mention it to Sal, explain why (s)he thinks it's important, and then Sal (or another instructor in the future) can make a video, and it can easily be incorporated into the curriculum. This process is much easier than it would be to incorporate it into a textbook, curriculum, etc.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#123

The way the author writes, it's as if he thinks there is some superior alternative that Khan is displacing. Last I checked, there ain't. Fact is, Khan's videos are considered good because the actual history education that most students take away from classrooms is even worse. Like most other subjects, that's what you get when you try to deliver a comprehensive, objective, detail-oriented education to students who (wi…

I don't think the students who miss out of high school history are the ones watching this video.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#125
post #112

The way the author writes, it's as if he thinks there is some superior alternative that Khan is displacing. Last I checked, there ain't. Fact is, Khan's videos are considered good because the actual history education that most students take away from classrooms is even worse. Like most other subjects, that's what you get when you try to deliver a comprehensive, objective, detail-oriented education to students who (wi…

it's as if he thinks there is some superior alternative that Khan is displacing. Last I checked, there ain't. Yes, that's what I was thinking. The stuff the author quotes sounds bad, but probably better than you'd get from some teachers I had. Plus on the Internet kids can watch these videos at any age. His simplified version of history could be way better than what e.g. an 8 year old might otherwise have access to.

In this case, it doesn't matter that Khan is displacing worse things. These videos are still a disservice to their viewers.

Better for people to know that they don't understand history, then to wrongly think they do know it. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we teach different things to different children, then, in order to promote educational diversity?

That smells like a rhetorical question. But my answer would be yes.

Interesting; can you elaborate? Surely it would be folly, say, to teach some children _wrong_ things simply for diversity. I doubt this is what you advocate, no?

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and normally consider myself pretty open minded. But then you read things like this. "Here Mr. Khan stands exposed as possessing a historical perspective steeped in academia’s standard issue, postmodern, left-leaning narrative of cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and moral equivalence. " And in my mind the author is exposed. I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't pres…

Even if history is presented as a perspective, why choose Khans perspective? Why not choose another perspective? You missed the bigger picture of the article, which is that a single entity never should control re-telling of events. There should not be one perspective. One person, one entity, can not provide different perspectives, due to echo chamber effects and such, it is almost impossible.

Why not choose as many perspectives as you possibly can? If human history (in the small-h sense, not the kind being argued about in TFA) is any kind of reliable guide, the truth will probably be somewhere betwixt all of them.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#128

Hi Everyone, This is Sal here. I wanted to respond directly on the author's page, but they seem to be having a problem taking comments. The reason why I make history videos is that many people I know (many of whom are quite educated) don't even have a basic scaffold of world events in their minds (or the potential causality between events). Most American high school and college students would find it difficult to giv…

> [most people] don't even have a basic scaffold of world events in their minds

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, many other people do have a scaffold, a derelict one at best, provided to them through their politically tainted education and validated by their social systems.

I respect that at least you're making an attempt to enable people to stimulate their interests and seek out a more detailed education on those topics.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#129

Hi Everyone, This is Sal here. I wanted to respond directly on the author's page, but they seem to be having a problem taking comments. The reason why I make history videos is that many people I know (many of whom are quite educated) don't even have a basic scaffold of world events in their minds (or the potential causality between events). Most American high school and college students would find it difficult to giv…

Sal,

The only thing novel about Khan Academy is accessibility. Its the same old teacher-centered lectures we've endured for the past hundred years, with a somewhat more charismatic instructor.

Most of the criticism I've seen of your work isn't "pseudo-intellectual babble," its merely pointing out what I've stated above, and that it isn't in line with what research tells us about how students learn. Your challenge for your critics to produce their own videos misses the point entirely.

I happen to think your videos are fine overall, and while I find some specific science content oversimplified and focus too much on mechanics rather than conceptual understanding, it serves very well for student review. For learning new content, however, I happen to believe that there is a better way.

Please view the video below:

Effectiveness of Science Videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8

While you're there, consider his videos a part of your final challenge. http://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium

I am very interested in your thoughts about his approach to instructional videos.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#130
post #120
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not invalidate, but it puts them into perspective. Most of his rant seems to be about how in Khan's quick summary of WW2, the UHmericans aren't portrayed as the morally superior righteous warriors / soldiers that defeated the evil Hitler and stopped his wrongdoings. And the Bolsheviks shouldn't have been mentioned without the required nuances that would teach present-day students that communism is evil. Or may…

I think it's more complex than that; in his point of view, History of WWII shouldn't be taught this way, in large (huge?) brush strokes. He argues (IMO successfully) that you must go deeper in details to get at least a basic grasp of these important events, and give them some meaning. Said differently, a simple list of loosely related facts simply doesn't constitute history; and to make the narrative compelling, unde…

It is indeed a "history overview". Kahn repeatedly mentions how he'll make more detailed videos later.
Post reply on HN