Bluegrime on 26/7/2010 at 19:47
:laff:
I enjoyed this post, very much
Chade on 26/7/2010 at 22:03
Quote Posted by fett
Additionally, I challenge anyone outside of a career in the field of science to name a single thing they learned in chemistry or any other advanced science class that actually matters in daily life (not the knowledge -the application)
Eh, I ended up abandoning my physics degree and went for programming instead, only to land my latest programming job largely due to the bits and pieces of physics knowledge I could dredge up in the interview. But this is isn't really what you asked about.
The most important benefit of learning science is that your thought patterns are accountable to reality. Learning to stay grounded in fundamental issues is a valuable skill in other fields as well, where it's easy to get caught up in incidental complexity (programming is a fucking nightmare in this regard - I constantly struggle to avoid thinking in terms of the latest tools and technologies).
fett on 27/7/2010 at 01:34
Quote Posted by Chade
The most important benefit of learning science is that your thought patterns are accountable to reality. Learning to stay grounded in fundamental issues is a valuable skill in other fields as well, where it's easy to get caught up in incidental complexity (programming is a fucking nightmare in this regard - I constantly struggle to avoid thinking in terms of the latest tools and technologies).
But it's possible to teach scientific method and critical thinking without ever getting into advanced sciences, and I would argue that for the majority of people, the first two are more important both in terms of life issues and career.
Edit: I don't mean to say that advanced sciences aren't important (I realize I sound like one of those "hur hur science is stoopid" homeschool people), just that they're probably over emphasized when criticizing self/home schooling. My oldest has very strong, centered interests in technology related to robotics and engineering so I'll have to deal with that in a few short years. But there's no way I would pick those subjects to teach in the normal course of teaching science. I'm just strongly convinced that interest-led instruction is crucial for certain personalities, and that forcing continued/advanced study in subjects where kids aren't naturally inclined only makes them resistant and resentful toward those subjects. I think my youngest is going to be more drawn toward the arts and literature, so if he's still homeschooled as a high-schooler, he'll probably end up with Biology, Physics, and maybe some Earth Science, but not much else since his career interests won't necessitate strong skills in advanced sciences.
Chade on 27/7/2010 at 03:25
Not being a teacher, I doubt I understand the problems involved in teaching subjects to students who just aren't interested in them. You are probably right.
That being said, I don't think you can stop "teaching people to think" at any level. It can always be done better. My experience moving from physics to programming at uni was that the courses required less intelligence from the students. I felt that the students were surrounded by poorly structured and motivated concepts (the bane of a "practical" education), and hence were less practised at structuring concepts so as to reach useful conclusions from them.
I have learned that this was more a problem with my uni then with computer science in general. However, I imagine that socially constructed concepts are more prone to incidental complexity then concepts anchored to the natural world.
uncadonego on 27/7/2010 at 05:14
My wife is a teacher in the public school board. She specializes in LST and is currently upgrading through the local university to level 3 LST. I don't want to say too much, because you never know who will google stumble upon this. Schools face budget challenges and legal challenges. The compromises necessitated obviously have an impact on kids. However, if you could read the teachers' forum boards, you might be swayed to believe that they are truly paying attention and do care about their students. My wife spends her own money on things to make her kids feel special, and she's always bringing new things into the class to keep things fresh. Fish, tadpoles, prizes, students cooking lunch on Fridays, incubating eggs and doing a study group on the subject, finding books to read that have additional video chapters online, etc., etc. etc. Right now her course is narrowing in on not only finding where students need help, but teaching the teachers themselves on the best teaching methods to overcome the students' learning impediments uniquely for each student. Whether home-schooled or educated in the public system, having teachers who care is very important. Another aspect that must be overcome much of the time is the lack of support at home. Parents have a huge role to play, and if that is missing, students face odds of having a harder time learning. With home-schooling, both of these aspects- caring teachers and involved parents, are rolled into one. That in itself tells me that Fett's kids have a great chance of doing well with their education and careers.
Just one guy's opinion.
Kolya on 27/7/2010 at 08:10
Chade's guru meditation: There is no such thing as incidental complexity.
DDL on 27/7/2010 at 10:53
And a lot of actual physics labs use mindstorm too, since it's easy to build and program stuff, and hey: lego!
Regarding practical applications of science demonstrations, that wasn't exactly my point: it was more that having an in-class practical demonstration of a principle made the principle that much easier to remember/understand. It's all very well to know that the thermite reaction is highly exothermic, but far more memorable to actually see it burn.
(and, hell: it's all very well to know that sodium hydroxide saponifies human tissue, but when you accidentally get a mouthful and it tastes of SOAP MADE FROM YOUR OWN CHEEKS, it's memorable)
But obviously, enough enthusiasm for the subject, combined with good teaching, and you're rolling, educational aids or no.
Chade on 27/7/2010 at 21:57
Quote Posted by Kolya
Chade's guru meditation:
There is no such thing as incidental complexity.Christ, I wish this was true. :(
Kolya on 27/7/2010 at 23:06
Okay, say you want to solve a problem. First you need a precise description of it.
So let's say I want to solve the problem of how people walking in front of me always go too slow.
Okay, that wasn't very precise. Let's start again: When I walk down a street and there are people walking in front of me, which I cannot easily pass, I'm forced to sync with their walking speed. And that annoys me. It's just one more proof to me that Raymond Queneau was right.
Solutions to this problem:
a) Kick them in their fat bourgeois arses
b) Ah wait. We don't need to worry about other solutions. That's incidental complexity.
Problem solved.
