That is terrifying. One of my wife's friends explained to me the way they teach science these days, where it is standard practice to guide the pupil towards finding his own answers through investigation and research. "All well and good," I said, "but at some point you have to let the kid know that the earth truly does revolve around the sun." "Well, that's the old way of thinking," she said. "No, investigation is all well and good but they're kids," I countered. "Don't you think it's important to let them know when they've hit upon the scientifically-backed, expert-agreed reality of the situation?" "It's more important to teach them how to find those answers themselves," she said. "But what if they decide the sun revolves around the earth?" "we would emphasize that they should investigate their sources fully in all instances." "But if they've managed to find a bunch of crackpot evidence that supports their claims, aren't you going to tell them they're wrong?" "It's important not to phrase the question in terms of right or wrong." "The earth does revolve around the sun. There is a right and wrong here." "And the student will determine that on their own when properly instructed." "But proper instruction does not involve telling them when they've arrived at the wrong conclusion?" "We would emphasize that there are many answers and that the student should make sure he's picked the right one." "So you're rewarding certainty rather than accuracy." "I wouldn't look at it that way." "You're giving the student the opportunity to believe that the sun revolves around the earth simply because he wants it to be true. Isn't the whole point of 'instruction' to teach the kid how the world works?" "The point of instruction is to teach the kid how to learn." "Okay, great. But in this case, the kid needs to learn how to tell the right answer from the wrong answer." "There's no right or wrong - " "There is, though- okay, we'll skip that. So if the kid manages to find the page for the Flat Earth Society and take it at face value, are you going to instruct him in the ways of determining parody from fact?" "I'm a science teacher, not a logic teacher." "That refuses to teach kids how that the earth revolves around the sun." "I don't refuse to teach them that, I refuse to tell them the way the world works." * * * Last time I talked to that bitch.
I was just thinking about this sort of thing today. Current educational practices are to teach children, instead of, say, math -- rather "how to solve problems." Critical thinking. Lots of buzzwords like that. This leads to a lot of children who can't do math. I'm not sure if any of them can solve problems, as it were, but they certainly can't fucking solve math problems anymore -- I see it every damn day when I volunteer. If you can't tell I think this is stupid and modern educational practices are a waste of time and that we can almost always learn more on our own and I guess I just needed a brief space to rant. That entire day of teaching kids to search for truth or whatever could have been boiled down into one sentence, "the earth revolves around the sun," and then they could have moved on to learning things that actually could use a bit of sought truth, as it were, and that would've been great and meaningful.
In second grade I was always the fastest at times tables and was generally rewarded with Smarties. Also, what the fuck is it about the tempting #askhubski tag that causes it to instantly become reddit-ified the moment there's an influx from reddit? I swear that's the only place on the site I'm seeing an impact so far.
I've temporarily ignored #askhubski, I've found it to be rather obnoxious at the moment. But I have full faith things will calm down soon enough and we will be left with another batch of wonderful people! I know I came over in the last round!
I damn near started a cranky old man post and then I had dinner. AskReddit was the same way until the mods turned nazi. IAmA, ELI5, AskScience, SuicideWatch, DoesAnybodyElse and god knows how many other subreddits were created solely to purify AskReddit in the midst of some fad or other.
To swing back around to writing for a second. University students are subject to the whims of all their teachers. Most will not "mark" writing, looking instead for ideas. As you say above (far above), every journal has its own style guide. I'm not sure about the US although many people prefer the Chicago Manual of Style. In Canada, the government, major newspapers, and educational institution agree that the * Oxford Canadian Dictionary* and the Oxford Canadian Manual of Style will be the current authorities. Here's a line from the NASA History Writing Style Guide that says why consistency in style is a good ideal:
You're giving the student the opportunity to believe that the sun revolves around the earth simply because he wants it to be true.
That would be an example of the gradual truthyfication of education. Truthiness is when we call something "true," because we want it to be true, usually without examining or understanding the evidence. It feels like it should be true.The purpose of style guidelines is to achieve consistency in prose style and usage so that readers can become absorbed in the content rather than be distracted by curiosities in form. Authors and editors likewise will have an easier task, composing and revising by the same set of rules. Guidelines are guidelines, however, and not laws etched in stone. Rules of usage, to serve their purpose, must of necessity strike a balance between custom, clarity, and principle.
Totally. Which is why they dominate nonfiction. Within fiction, however, the style and usage are half the fun. Ran into this all the time in screenwriting because there are precise, colorful, appropriate words to use, but the knuckle headed screenwriting "industry" has gotten the idea that if you use language more colorful than the bare minimum, you're "polluting" the story. Nevermind that every spec screenplay ever sold has all sorts of "color."The purpose of style guidelines is to achieve consistency in prose style and usage so that readers can become absorbed in the content rather than be distracted by curiosities in form.
I don't think that teacher really understood the methodology of what she was trying to do. Teachers are now taught that the old models of teaching, "rote memorization" and "lecture" which are teacher-centric and focus on teaching rather than learning, are less desirable than student-centric approaches, which focuses on the students and relies on the teacher being there for motivation, focus and guidance. While there are merits to both approaches, there are also serious drawbacks. In reality, good teachers have to adapt to the classes they are given, as every group of people has its own dynamic, preferred learning style, etc. I've seen this attitude too often. Yes, it makes it easier for teachers to break things up into narrow subjects, but it doesn't help students. Instead, it gives students the idea that these things are unrelated when in fact many of them overlap in numerous instances. For example, a molecular chemist needs to know how to write so that other molecular chemists or scientists of other specializations can understand the work so that it may be used or experimented with. Anyway, breaking things down is fine, but I don't see a whole lot of instruction on how to put things together, which is not fine."I'm a science teacher, not a logic teacher."
And she said as much (the latter, not the former!). But then, that's the issue - whereas before, teachers had a straight path between ignorance and knowledge, they now must make a meandering, traipsy path through self esteem. Which okay, if you're a genius instructor with unlimited time, no problem. But there are more jolly old elves at the north pole than there are genius instructors with unlimited time.I don't think that teacher really understood the methodology of what she was trying to do. Teachers are now taught that the old models of teaching, "rote memorization" and "lecture" which are teacher-centric and focus on teaching rather than learning, are less desirable than student-centric approaches, which focuses on the students and relies on the teacher being there for motivation, focus and guidance.
Yeah, no arguments there. Everyone wants to have a superkid these days, but it seems like a lot of people forget that dedicated, focused time is what it takes to develop skills and talent. I don't envy teachers in the U.S.if you're a genius instructor with unlimited time, no problem.
Do you envy teachers somewhere else though? Is there a dream state or country that celebrates and rewards good teachers?
To answer the first question: no, not personally. To answer the second: that really depends on the person and what their dream in regard to teaching entails. What exactly do you mean by rewards? Financial rewards? A good teaching experience? Anyway, take a look at this infographic: I was a for-profit English as a Foreign Language Teacher, which meant that I had bottom lines to think about. I also had to figure out how to market the courses I created and how to keep asses in seats, plus creating an experience that was effective and enjoyable enough that students and corporate students/companies would talk about me to their friends. It's a lot different that teaching public or private school. That said, for-profit teachers have to deal with a lot of the same stuff that regular teachers do: class chemistry, how their student's days have affected their mood, administrators that don't know what they're talking about, unreasonable requests from parents, people expecting the best education humanly possible for the minimum amount of compensation . . . As I was a for-profit teacher, my line for that last part was, "OK, you only want to pay me half my rate? I'll teach you at half my ability." Anyway, I hear good things about Scandanavian countries as far as the balance of compensation and good experience with students. I guess I wouldn't mind teaching at the university level again, but if I did do it again, I'd definitely shop around a bit first.
I wonder if the US salaries are normalized for time off. In many other countries, school is a year round affair. In the US, teachers' salaries are based off a 9 month schedule (with ample time off during the year, as well). This makes their effective pay quite a bit higher than their nominal pay. Also, I would have to imagine that in other developed countries, teacher pay doesn't vary so wildly in different geographical regions. Generally, teachers in the Midwest and Northeast actually get paid decently (up to $80,000 for a teacher with a master's degree and a lot of experience), whereas in the South, they seem to think that teacher is the lowest rung of the professional world (despite all the evidence to the contrary).
Hmm, yeah I don't know how the information was compiled. I would take that infographic with a grain of salt to be sure. It was created using data from 2009 and who knows how many hands it passed through before becoming an image. Still, I thought it was a nice, general illustration. As far as variance in pay, I have no idea. What you say makes a certain amount of sense as conjecture, if only because most developed nations have a lower population and smaller geographic area than the U.S. I don't know for sure who is a teacher on hubski, but I know there are a few. Maybe we can ask them? I know that in the Northeast, teachers can definitely make a good wage, depending on district and whether or not they belong to the teacher's union. I know a woman who graduated a year ahead of me who was able to buy a lake house on Winnipesauke only a few years after she started working as a teacher because she got into the Boston teacher's union right away. Maybe it's just because I'm from snooty, old New England, but I'm not surprised to hear someone say that about the South. My only experience with the school systems in the South is from things my relatives in Florida have complained about. Is Florida considered a part of the South?
I just finished reading a book on economics for non-economists and basically it came down to: Prices drive everything No one does anything without incentives Price controls fuck shit up You get what you pay for and Human emotions make us forget a whole lot of these basic principles and because of that, we often fuck ourselves over. Florida is in the news for weird, dumb crimes often because: you get what you pay for.
They're missing one key component (perhaps the biggest component), which is that often people are unaware of all the information they need to clearly see which incentives are in their favor and which aren't (informational asymmetry, in the parlance). This can be willful, but normally is not. It has been the strategy of the neocon movement to obscure poor people's incentives as much as possible specifically by playing to their (mostly irrational) emotional state. In this article, the author points out how strongly his geographic location is united against the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that it has 26% poverty (an astronomical number, even third world-esque), pretty much all of whom are already, or would certainly now qualify for, government assistance. The branding and obscuring (done intentionally by monied interests) that these uneducated people are subjected to makes it pretty much impossible to determine a logical course of action.
I hear you. I don't think it's a coincidence that the country the created modern advertising also has such wily politicians. Alan Moore compares advertising people as essentially practitioners of magic that use their abilities to manipulate reality for financial gain and the detriment of all. Alan Moore is nuts, but once you get beyond his crazy exterior, he begins to make a lot of sense. I haven't checked that link out yet, but I will. I know a lot of people who are against the electoral college, but the intention of the electoral college as I understand it, was so that informed decisions could be ensured in regard to the vote. Of course, that's probably not exactly how it goes down for elections today, but "the way to hell is paved with good intentions" right? Edit: it's funny how "the War on Terror" is supposed to make Americans feel more secure and is supposed to be against extremists, but instead it turns out it's a war being waged by extremists and making people scared of their own shadows.
Yes. Not a father, but if I were I would hesitate to send my kids to be fucked up by political bullshit masquerading as education. There is a time fr questioning and a time for objective truth. The way the planets work is not a subject that should be debated in class. Instead, why not focus in how we arrived at that conclusion in the first place? Then we can have a science and history lesson in one. There's a reason kids didn't discover the interesting science to begin with. It's tough shit that takes study, years of it. Sad.