Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Enrolls His Kids In Khan Academy
theodp writes "At some schools, a teaching load of five courses every academic year is considered excessive. But Sal Khan, as an earlier Slashdot post noted, manages to deliver his mini-lectures an average of 70,000 times a day. BusinessWeek reports that Khan Academy has a new fan in Bill Gates, who's been singing and tweeting the praises of the free-as-in-beer website. 'This guy is amazing,' Gates wrote. 'It is awesome how much he has done with very little in the way of resources.' Gates and his 11-year-old son have been soaking up videos, from algebra to biology. And at the Aspen Ideas Festival in front of 2,000 people, Gates gave Khan a shout-out, touting the 'unbelievable' Khan Academy tutorials that 'I've been using with my kids.'"
He's the rich founder of MS, yet he's an awesome philanthropist and geek father keen to educate his kids properly.
You have stuff to learn from this guy.
It would be nice if Microsoft overcharged educational establishments enough that academics outside math, physics, computer science, and finance also started using LaTeX, which is older but vastly superior to Word.
He gives money away that he has no use for anyway. Result: He can steer the direction of research that 'his' money goes to, he gets to decide which charities get money. With being an criminal in how he did business in Microsoft, he's effectively stolen money from hundreds of millions of people, driven other business into the ground, and taken away the choice to give to charity to other people. Whether that would have been done is another matter, he's still taken away the choice. Oh and as to giving away 'his' money, from what I've read he has not actually done so but in effect set up another business (the business of providing money to his selected charities) which is based on 'his' money but mainly giving other people's money, those people who have given their money to his foundation, away to his selected charities.
Let me me be quite blunt here because it's appropriate: Give me a fooking break! There is nothing I can learn from a sociopath like Billy gates.
Thirty years ago, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) released a controversial document entitled An Agenda for Action. Part of what made the position statement so controversial was the recommendation that computers and calculators should be a part of every mathematics classroom (http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17282). Many teachers and parents feared that students might never learn mathematics properly if they could just press a few buttons to produce a correct answer. In stark contrast, the schoolchildren of the YouTube generation are virtually inseparable from their portable electronics - many of which are more powerful than early graphing calculators that NCTM. Dubbed digital natives (http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky - Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants - Part1.pdf), none among them were alive during a time when there was no Internet. As a result, the question is no longer “if” technology should be a part of public education but is now “how much”.
Many schools are emerging that are online-only (http://keystonehighschool.com/) or otherwise devoted to technology (http://www.neatorama.com/2010/01/09/school-teaches-its-students-almost-entirely-through-video-games/). You can even earn a doctorate at an online university (http://www.phoenix.edu/colleges_divisions/doctoral.html)! Additionally, online resources like the amateur Khan Academy or the commercial ALEKS (http://www.aleks.com/) are beginning to challenge several long-standing assumptions about the need for face-to-face instruction or even the need for teachers. Most importantly, it is worth stating that the research on eLearning is mixed, as a whole. A specific eLearning package may help in reading but not in mathematics, may help at third grade but not eighth grade, or may help on a state-level test but not on a national-level test. So, there is no clear answer on a “best” package or way to use technology. However, there are several key points to consider:
Embarrassment
To be honest, nobody likes to be wrong, and mathematics is a subject in which students are often told that they are, at least technically, incorrect. It is no wonder that eLearning can get such positive feedback from students. Many packages use little to no direct contract with a teacher; even if they do, a student is not going to be told they are incorrect in front of twenty or thirty of their peers. A private email is not so bad in comparison to even the gentlest public rebuke. Similarly, nobody needs to know if a given student has been successful either. It is often considered geeky to be good at school, especially in the STEM subjects. This turns many people away from science and mathematics, particularly girls. eLearning can provide a method to circumvent such peer scrutiny.
Motivation
Students like computers. Given a choice between a hands-on activity and an identical computer activity, many students will opt for the latter. Moreover, students like games, and eLearning developers are actively trying to capitalize on that appeal. While good in theory, a key implementation problem is that much edutainment uses the games as a reward for practice (http://www.funbrain.com/math/index.html) rather than as the means for actually teaching the material (http://ldt.stanford.edu/ldt1999/Students/kemery/esc/rockyDemoFrame.htm). I certainly approve of additional practice, but even the most motivated student requires a good explanation now and then.
Willingness
Another thing to keep in mind is that school occurs on a set schedule over which the student has little to no control. Much of eLearning is available whenever the student is willing to participate. In other words, those who succeed are those who have chosen to participate. In fact, research often shows that eLearning success is strongly dependent upon the amount of time a student participates. Of course, convincing someone to dedicate time and effort to actual eLearning is no
This is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen on the Internet. Finally, somebody is taking a new medium and presenting this kind of lecture material in a format and method where students can obtain the material themselves. Kids, without money, can actually obtain this stuff and learn from it. It's not a product being sold, it's just incredible. I dreamed of this kind of content as a kid. I think all geeks did. It was only available to be doled out by clueless adults to learn at the pace they felt you were ready for it, or it was crap being shoveled at parents to give their kids a "head start"
...and presenting it world-wide, this is *stunning*.
I'm currently teaching myself linear algebra with the aid of Khan's videos, and I couldn't be happier with the quality of the material.
The fact that his work is steadily garnering more attention is a good thing in my view, since it increases the likelihood of more excellent videos being made available for free as a result of donations, grants, etc.
node-def: a tactical hacking sim. Now in open beta.
This is why I left the tech sector and went straight into finance. That along with the ridiculous job requirements (must know every language under the sun) & ageism, staying in the tech sector for the long run didn't seem like a good idea.
Still code as a hobby though :)
It was a well written, respectful, explanation excusing Mr. Gates' behavior by rationalizing that everybody's money in some way or another funds "bad" things in life. I, however, don't agree nor do I accept any attempt to excuse his behavior. The bottom line is that MOST people don't have BILLIONS of dollars invested DIRECTLY into corporations with unethical behavior. Does Gates foundation fund charities? Well, maybe they do. The questions I have for everyone who thinks that Mr. Gates is doing good is this: Are there any restrictions on the donations,i.e., does the charity have to use ONLY Microsoft products? If the answer is yes, they do have to use ONLY Microsoft products, then do you still believe that is he's doing good charity or good marketing? They are not the same, and they are exclusive.
Isn't having an agenda the whole point of donating money? Most (big) donors would like to see their donations do more than what that funding can do directly, hence driving an agenda. If they lacked an agenda, they'd pull the Family Guy stunt of tossing money from a blimp or something similar.
As to the investment policy, that complaint always makes me laugh. Even something the size of the Gates Foundation will not affect the share price of a given stock over the long haul, nor can it affect the corporate behavior while staying diversified. Why then shouldn't they seek the highest return to be able to do the most good? Some may hate pharmaceuticals for their policies on generics, but in their absence, would the drugs be available in even the first world? This complaint smacks of the "Harrison Bergeron" school of equality.
H1B's take back what they learn, Microsoft. Their governments take back an indoctrinated acolyte. I can understand mastery of a toolset. Person A comes to work skilled and certified in Visual Studio, C#, and SQL Server. Person B comes to work familiar with the aforementioned products but as well is familiar with Oracle, Ubuntu, and Java's suite of tools. Person C comes to work familiar with SQL Server but generally only has an administrative background. So management has these three people to work as a team to derive a product within three months. You can only imagine the difficulties that transpire as a result of conflicting personal views. So from a management world view: You won't an employee that will take the resources you have and provide a product in a short time with the least difficulties. H1B's are the Person A's. Skilled U.S. workers are the Person B's. Corporate executives are the Person C's. This is changing as more U.S. workers are attempting to get certifications.
Microsoft often donated the software FREE to academic facilities, and when it wasn't totally free, they got huge discounts often paying 1/6th (or less) of the normal price. Somehow I fail to see how this is "overcharging" unless you take the view that all software should be completely free. I guess $10 for an office sweet is "overcharging" if you see things that way.
I'm starting a revolution, I call it "lawn care should be free", or "open source lawncare". Perhaps you wouldn't mind coming over to my house and cutting my lawn for free. You obviously don't have a wife/girlfriend let alone a family to feed. Once you are done cutting my lawn and trimming my bushes, please GET OFF MY LAWN.
It's like the Rockefeller's. Once you have more money than you can spend in a lifetime, you tend to give it away (at least with new money, the Hiltons, Fords and such, where the ones that made the things that earned the money didn't make it to "filthy rich" until the children were involved tend to be tight-assed pricks).
Money you give to charity is money you would have had to give to income tax, but you get to look generous and to make sure it goes to causes that do not interfere with your investment strategies.
Your argument fails because it isn't a tax credit, but a tax deduction. There is no dollar that would have gone to the feds that you get to donate to charity. You have to give $3 to charity to prevent $1 from going to the feds, so it is a real net loss to give to charity, not a break even.
Learn to love Alaska