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

The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

hedgehogreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#181

Post by WalterBright »

rubidium wrote: post #165
WalterBright wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't learn programming from a classroom. I have audited some programming classes, and learned very little, because I never did the exercises nor took the exams. I know that there are some unicorns who learned math on their own. But I haven't encountered one in the real world. (Ok, so I know one - Hal Finney. But that man was simply so smart, he learned it by flipping through the book, i.e. it was effortless for h…

I went to a high school with no grades. It was great. My peers and i wanted to learn and we did. And there was no grade hype/complaining/competition. It works. The reality is as humans we love to learn things. Focus providing an environment that delivers that and the motivation is not a big issue.

If that works for you, great!

But consider this:

1. How does one know one mastered the material? I've often thought I knew it, but found out I did not.

2. How does a college know one mastered the material?

3. Even when doing things one loves, there are always some boring things that need to be done, too.

BTW, in learning to program on my own, I later discovered there were yawning gaps in my knowledge that were conventional knowledge taught in CS classes. It was embarrassing.

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#182

Post by WalterBright »

CrazyStat wrote: post #171
WalterBright wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brown University allowed students to take all classes as pass/fail Meaning they're still taking exams. "The goal of the Reed education is that students learn and demonstrate rigor" https://www.reed.edu/about-reed/history.html Demonstrate rigor sounds like tests. "Among the requirements for the major are successful performance on a junior qualifying examination, completion of a yearlong senior thesis based on origin…

I was answering a question about grades, not tests. Also "demonstrate rigor" absolutely does not imply tests. In my undergrad (math) the level of rigor of tests was uniformly (and necessarily) much lower than homework and other assignments without the same time pressure. I would expect the same to be true in many other fields.

Pass/fail is still a grade, albeit a binary one. Caltech had pass/fail for freshman, and still most everyone felt the pressure at the end of the semester with the final exam looming, and worked hard to pass it.

> Also "demonstrate rigor" absolutely does not imply tests.

Sure it does.

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#183

Post by WalterBright »

cmh89 wrote: post #177
WalterBright wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that a test environment isn't ideal for gauging how well someone knows materials. Nobody said it was "ideal". Sheesh. But nobody has found a better way. > Our system of testing incentivizes teaching to the test and a focus on pointless memorization. News flash: some tests are poorly conceived. > It comes down to, what is the point of testing students? Allow me to reframe that. Would you get on an airpl…

>Nobody said it was "ideal". Sheesh. But nobody has found a better way. I mean, there are plenty of people who have found a better way. They get pushback from folks who think testing is the end-all-be-all of knowledge assessment. >News flash: some tests are poorly conceived. It's more like they are flawed from the get-go >Allow me to reframe that. Would you get on an airplane piloted by a fellow who was never tested…

> I don't think it really benefits anyone to come up with irrelevant strawmen.

It's perfectly relevant. Tests are used all the time to gauge mastery of a topic.

> irrelevant for gauging knowledge

It's not at all irrelevant. When you've mastered something, it doesn't take long to produce the answer. For example, the better at math I got, the faster I could answer the questions. If it takes one an hour to multiply 123x456, one is reinventing multiplication rather than knowing multiplication.

Mastery and speed are strongly correlated.

Caltech classes sometimes had "infinite time" exams. But the students hated them. There was always the temptation to do more on them, and the students wanted an end to it, as they had lots of classes with exams.

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#184

Post by WalterBright »

watwut wrote: post #160
WalterBright wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware of the modern movement to discredit tests, arguing that doing well on tests have nothing to do with knowing the material. I'm not a subscriber to that. If you are, I expect you'll be disappointed with the results. It's also why there are athletic competitions. It brings out the best in athletes as they strive to win. Are their achievements fake?

> It's also why there are athletic competitions. It brings out the best in athletes as they strive to win. Majority of people don't participate in athletic competitions. They checks out. These are for elite majority interested in finding out who is best of the best while everybody else sits on sofa and watches them on youtube. Ideally, education should not have majority of students ignoring whole thing exists or mere…

> Majority of people don't participate in athletic competitions.

The ones that don't aren't very good at it.

> sits on sofa and watches them on youtube.

Exactly.

> education should not have majority of students ignoring whole thing exists or merely watching others compete without every learning themselves

Right. Testing&grades provide 1) motivation and 2) assessment of progress.

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#185

Post by cmh89 »

WalterBright wrote: post #183
cmh89 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody said it was "ideal". Sheesh. But nobody has found a better way. I mean, there are plenty of people who have found a better way. They get pushback from folks who think testing is the end-all-be-all of knowledge assessment. >News flash: some tests are poorly conceived. It's more like they are flawed from the get-go >Allow me to reframe that. Would you get on an airplane piloted by a fellow who was never tested…

> I don't think it really benefits anyone to come up with irrelevant strawmen. It's perfectly relevant. Tests are used all the time to gauge mastery of a topic. > irrelevant for gauging knowledge It's not at all irrelevant. When you've mastered something, it doesn't take long to produce the answer. For example, the better at math I got, the faster I could answer the questions. If it takes one an hour to multiply 123x…

>It's perfectly relevant. Tests are used all the time to gauge mastery of a topic.

I think you must just be extremely mistaken on what people are talking about then. I can't understand why you think that anyone is calling for pilots not to be given tests.

>It's not at all irrelevant. When you've mastered something, it doesn't take long to produce the answer. For example, the better at math I got, the faster I could answer the questions. If it takes one an hour to multiply 123x456, one is reinventing multiplication rather than knowing multiplication.

You aren't everyone though. Some people get major test anxiety, some people are good at doing math but bad at memorizing equations.

Just call a spade a spade. Do we care about how fast a student can do 10 math problems? Or do we care that the student can do the 10 math problems? Those are just different things. Most people only care if the student can do the 10 math problems.

>Mastery and speed are strongly correlated.

But speed is irrelevant to mastery. You can master a skill without doing it as quickly as others.

> But the students hated them. There was always the temptation to do more on them, and the students wanted an end to it, as they had lots of classes with exams.

That sounds like a personal problem. Probably because they grew up taking tests that were more about memorization and regurgitation than they are about recognizing when you've answered a question completely.

At the end of the day it comes down what are metric for success is. If you can cram for a test, that is a good indication that the test is mostly a test of your ability to regurgitate answers. If two students can get 100% on a math test, and one student takes an hour and the other takes an hour and half, most people would consider them both proficient on those math questions.

You, for whatever reason, think speed at answering questions is important. Lots of others, including most people who study education, don't share that view.

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#186

Post by CrazyStat »

WalterBright wrote: post #182
CrazyStat wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was answering a question about grades, not tests. Also "demonstrate rigor" absolutely does not imply tests. In my undergrad (math) the level of rigor of tests was uniformly (and necessarily) much lower than homework and other assignments without the same time pressure. I would expect the same to be true in many other fields.

Pass/fail is still a grade, albeit a binary one. Caltech had pass/fail for freshman, and still most everyone felt the pressure at the end of the semester with the final exam looming, and worked hard to pass it. > Also "demonstrate rigor" absolutely does not imply tests. Sure it does.

No it doesn't.

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#187

Post by Turing_Machine »

throwawaygh wrote: post #178
theonething wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your response. Out of the four you listed, the only church in the traditional sense of the word is the Greek Orthodox parish. The next two are Jewish and Buddhist temples and the fourth one is community/health center offering things like ballroom dance lessons. But if we expand the scope to houses of worship, then temples are included. I think I've heard of churches charging nominal fees for church members…

> I think I've heard of churches charging nominal fees for church membership, but not requiring tithing Requiring tithing is not particularly common, but I'm also not surprised when I hear of churches where it happens. A lot of this probably depends on your tradition and geography. Requiring tithing is entirely unheard of in the mainline and very uncommon in the northeast generally, for example, but seems to be sligh…

I've heard rumors that a local "kilochurch" (not quite a megachurch, but still a pretty honkin' big church) actually expects to see a copy of the church member's income tax return. I won't name the church because, again, it's just a rumor, but I'll bet if you related this story to anyone in my town, they'd immediately guess which church it is.

As far as "having only one church" goes, I intentionally tried to get as broad a base as I could for the practice. There are many, many other examples, of all religions, and all branches of the Christian religion, as anyone who cares to do his or her own web search can soon determine.

> In any case, I think social pressure on members to tithe is MUCH more common than formal requirements.

Definitely. Even if there is no formal requirement, everyone knows who finances the church, and a wise minister goes out of his or her way to avoid antagonizing those people.

A non-finance related anecdote: several of the elders of a church some of my family members attended years ago decided to attend (Important Sportsball Game) in (Distant City) one weekend, rather than attending church.

The next Sunday the minister's sermon emphasized why attending church on Sunday should outweigh any worldly activity (such as attending Important Sportsball Games).

The next Sunday after that, there was a new minister.

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#188

Post by theonething »

krageon wrote: post #168
theonething wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> clearly anecdotal. Take a look again at their statement > but often being a "member" of the church requires providing some form of formal support, such as tithing note the word "often". How is that clearly anecdotal? If the commenter had framed it as their own experience at a church they attended, I'd have no problem believing them. But clearly that's not the case. They are making a general assertion about most (or…

> be a bit more respectful and charitable Helping people see that their behaviour is not acceptable in a relatively mild manner is very respectful. The charitability thing is not really all that relevant here, because the words were not taken in a bad light - both of you agree on what was said. What you don't agree on is whether or not it should have been said, which no amount of charitable reading will fix.

> Helping people see that their behaviour is not acceptable in a relatively mild manner is very respectful.

The premise of andrew_14's correction, that the gp comment is anecdotal is totally wrong. I thought I'd made that clear.

So I'm genuinely curious, how was my behavior unacceptable?

Here is the flow of discussion:

Turing_Machine: "often being a "member" of the church requires providing some form of formal support, such as tithing"

Me: (paraphrased) That doesn't seem true that often being a member of a church requires support such as tithing. Could you give me some sources for this?

Again, please explain to me why responding to a blanket assertion by asking for evidence is unacceptable behavior? I see it here all the time.

> relatively mild manner is very respectful

Describing my request as asinine which means extremely stupid is relatively mild and respectful? Relative to what? Getting punched in the face?

I beg to differ that is was mild and respectful. Even if he put it in a respectable way like "I don't think your request is reasonable given the statement was anecdotal", again, the premise of his comment is totally wrong so his correction of my behavior is fallacious.

> The charitability thing is not really all that relevant here, because the words were not taken in a bad light - both of you agree on what was said.

I'm confused by this. I don't think both of us agree on what was said (your words). But since I don't quite understand what you are saying, I can't comment further. What words were not taken in a bad light? That he said my request is really stupid? I take that in a bad light. And what was said that we both agree on?

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#189

Post by Turing_Machine »

WalterBright wrote: post #111
Turing_Machine wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that cramming to keep the material in your brain just long enough to pass the final constitutes "learning".

I'm sure that doing nothing is even less effective.

I'm sure it is, but I'm not sure why you seem to be implying that the only alternatives are "cram" and "do nothing".

Re: The Catherine Project: A new experiment in liberal education

#190

Post by [deleted] »

zepto wrote: post #179
_jal wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m surprised you don’t think it’s important for power to be accountable. You're just making shit up now with no relation to what I'm writing. I don't waste my time on bad faith.

> I don't waste my time on bad faith. I think it’s more that you simply don’t have a good response to the points, and making an accusation of bad faith is a cheap way for you to avoid facing that. I’m not making anything up. Let’s take a look at what you wrote: Me: > what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes You: >> What a weird test. No system of government…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN