Slashdot Mirror
TED Education — Video Lessons For Students
New submitter EuNao writes "TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design), the organization based on 'ideas worth sharing,' launched a new initiative this past week. It is called TED-Ed, and it aims to engage students with unforgettable lessons. There are many places in the world where a wonderful teacher or mentor is teaching something mind-blowing, but as it stands now not many people have access to that powerful experience. Ted-Ed aims to bring that engaging experience to everyone who has an internet connection. Here are summaries and links to the nine videos that were initially released."
It's the difference between learning what all the memory addresses do on a Commodore 64 (POKE xxxxx, 254) and learning what the correct command in VBA is when you're working Excel.
This is been tried in many countries and has failed miserabley. TV should be used in the classrom on fridays when the students are too busy thinking about what they are going to do on the weekend.
Three education related sites released this year:
In addition to the programming initiatives at Khan academy and MIT OCW that existed already.
We have dropouts/people who never went to college holding high positions (work with a bunch of such guys on open source projects) Why would people even go to college once this becomes mainstream?
Some apps are WYSIWYG. Some others are WYSIWTF.
...is the lesson that you are naturally entitled to nothing, from property to welfare, and that most human constructs are constricting rather than liberating.
So ignore how you're told to live, and work in the way that you think seems right.
Look, America has only ever produced a very, very small handful of scientists. The "one last generation of scientists" that you speak of is the only generation of scientists that American has produced!
Up until about 1970, essentially every significant "American" scientific discovery of accomplishment was the work of European-born and European-trained scientists and engineers. Working backward from 1970, the space program was mainly the work of Europeans. The atomic age was brought about by Europeans. Much of the digital age, including critical work involving the creation of transistors and semiconductors, was the work of Europeans. Most automotive and aviation technology was pioneered by Europeans. The techniques for building modern urban infrastructure were the work of Europeans. Railways and locomotives were invented by Europeans. The technology of the industrial revolution was the work of Europeans.
I hope you see the trend there. Europeans are responsible for virtually all of the technology available and widely used today.
American scientists only came into their own in the late 1960s and 1970s. Americans like Dennis Ritchie and Donald Knuth, for example, did perform some groundbreaking research. But then the whole Reagan Mistake of the 1980s took place, followed by "free trade", both of which essentially trashed the American economy, and also the funding for scientific discovery and education.
These days, illiteracy runs rampant throughout many parts of the United States. Without having basic reading abilities, it's impossible to learn even the most basic mathematics, and it's impossible to make any kind of a scientific contribution. Indeed, when you hear about American-based scientists today, many of them are from Japan, South Korea, India or China. It's the same situation as it was before the 1970s, except now it's Asian-born and Asian-trained scientists making the real discoveries and performing the real science.
I'm not comfortable using them in lessons until I know what the copyright is on them. But I can't find that info on the Youtube page or on education.ted.com.
USA sucks. The ambition to learn STEM (another useless acronym) was lost long ago. We have one last generation of scientists; then no more..
Clearly you're overlooking the fact that over 90% of students who are taught the STEM curriculum have learned to spell 'stem' correctly. We'll take our successes where we can find them, TYVM.
The sketch human, whose brain's segments are re-assembled onto the sketch... sucks.
Facial expressions dim, to say the least. I wouldn't show this to kids at school.
KhanAcademy.org is still our fav, at the moment... :-)
As someone who's likely to end up as a university professor of math in a decade or so, online learning like this makes me wonder about my long-term job security. Why should I get paid to put together and give a lecture on material that an excellent lecturer and support staff have already thoroughly covered online? Sure, there's more to classroom learning than mutely listening to a lecture, but is there enough to justify the extraordinarily high cost of the alternative? Will it be tempting in a few years for a budget-conscious administrator to have undergraduates watch free online lectures with grad students doing all the support work (grading, office hours, recitations, etc.)?
I take some comfort in the fact that people are willing to pay through the nose for a prestigious education and that online education is currently a second-class citizen. Academic institutions are also very slow to change as a rule. My theoretical job is probably safe, but I don't know what the long term future holds. Residential undergraduate institutions stocked with professors giving lectures may become extremely rare as high quality, highly reproducible, efficient online learning improves and perhaps becomes mainstream.
There have always been alternative ways to study or get good at something, next to a formal school. Home schooling is a common and not unpopular way of educating children in the USA, for instance.
The reason you go to university is because you learn to do a lot of things like team work, social skills, negotiating, working in projects, dealing with supervisors without having to wear a uniform and all that.
Every time you pass a milestone at university, people will know your skill level, even if it's not directly tailored to a "real job". There is some form of warranty in hiring someone that doesn't have a lot of on the job experience, but does have a degree with good grades at a well established institute. Those don't give out degrees to people that aren't up to the standards they advertize with and why they can and will ask more money for from their students. As long as your contribution as a teacher is valuable enough to those extra things, there will be a university wanting to pay your salary for that.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
It's the difference between learning what all the memory addresses do on a Commodore 64 (POKE xxxxx, 254) and learning what the correct command in VBA is when you're working Excel.
Where's the difference? Both are useless artefacts of bad interfaces that clog our minds.
The videos I watched remind me of that old TV show "Watch Me Wizard". Short and focused on a single facet of one topic, the video can hold your attention for a few minutes. They would be a good supplement in a traditional educational setting, kind of like a reading assignment.
They don't seem especially revolutionary though; and keep in mind that TED talks often subtly (or not so subtly) push their organization's political agenda.
I think that the Traditional College system is not the best fit for lot’s of jobs and there are better ways to learn and to show that you have skills.
Harvard Study: Too Much Emphasis On College Education?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0202/Does-everyone-need-a-college-degree-Maybe-not-says-Harvard-study [csmonitor.com] [CC] [MD] [GC]
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/02/harvard-study-hey-maybe-were-placing-too-much-emphasis-on-a-college-education/ [hotair.com] [CC] [MD] [GC]
“It would be fine if we had an alternative system [for students who don’t get college degrees], but we’re virtually unique among industrialized countries in terms of not having another system and relying so heavily on higher education,” says Robert Schwartz, who heads the Pathways to Prosperity project at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.
Emphasizing college as the only path may actually cause some students – who are bored in class but could enjoy learning that’s more entwined with the workplace – to drop out, he adds. “If the image [of college] is more years of just sitting in classrooms, that’s not very persuasive.”
The United States can learn from other countries, particularly in northern Europe, Professor Schwartz says. In Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland, for instance, between 40 and 70 percent of high-schoolers opt for programs that combine classroom and workplace learning, many of them involving apprenticeships. These pathways result in a “qualification” that has real currency in the labor market”
“It would be fine if we had an alternative system [for students who don’t get college degrees], but we’re virtually unique among industrialized countries in terms of not having another system and relying so heavily on higher education,” says Robert Schwartz, who heads the Pathways to Prosperity project at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.
Emphasizing college as the only path may actually cause some students – who are bored in class but could enjoy learning that’s more entwined with the workplace – to drop out, he adds. “If the image [of college] is more years of just sitting in classrooms, that’s not very persuasive.”
The United States can learn from other countries, particularly in northern Europe, Professor Schwartz says. In Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland, for instance, between 40 and 70 percent of high-schoolers opt for programs that combine classroom and workplace learning, many of them involving apprenticeships. These pathways result in a “qualification” that has real currency in the labor market”
http://ketchumgroup.net/blog/skills-needed-skills-defined/
“This determination could have long-range impact in the use of diplomas as blanket screening tools. Unlike industry-based certification, diplomas and degrees from schools seldom define demonstrated and assessed skills. This EEOC guidance could speed the adoption of skill-based, industry driven, skill certification. Currently, the US Department of Labor lists over 4,400 industry-based certifications on the Certification Finder at the CareerOneStop.com website. These certifications will rise in importance to employers while education-based credentials may fade. Effective skill development on the job requires a structured approach based on the defined skills used in the workplace. In such a structured OJT workplace, meeting this EEOC guidance will be readily accomplished, and new employees quickly trained in the need skills.”
Some times it's solo with no open book. and the in real work place it's open book and open team. So that is why we need more real job skills and not overloads of theory.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/022511-it-graduates.html
A more accurate statement might be "by European-born Americans". The atomic age was not brought about in Europe, but only once Europeans from several nations emigrated to the United States, where they worked in a team of diverse ethnic origins (Germans, Hungarians, Americans, Poles, etc.), something that would've been unthinkable in Europe itself.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Your analysis of the TED talks by age and gender may be a bit whimsical, but you're in essence dead on.
The smug and tedious pretentiousness of the majority of TED presentations has been one of those Geek Truths That Dare Not Speak It's Name for years now. It's about two, maybe three years away from complete Burning Man Status (i.e., everyone knows it's time has come and gone, but there's still plenty of money to be made from the n00bs, so hush up...)
something that would've been unthinkable in Europe itself.
The Solvay Conferences?
The atomic age was not brought about in Europe, but only once Europeans from several nations emigrated to the United States, where they worked in a team of diverse ethnic origins (Germans, Hungarians, Americans, Poles, etc.), something that would've been unthinkable in Europe itself.
Not really. The teams working on nuclear physics were involved in a lot of international collaborations before the second world war. The team working on atom bombs in the UK included people of various nationalities. They were sent to join the Manhattan project because the British government didn't want them to be captured by the Nazis in the event of an invasion.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Oh bull. US students regularly perform at-or-above average for European students in math.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf
PDF warning, actual data warning, etc.
TIMSS is both math and science, and our kids generally trounce European students. Asian countries, on the other hand, rule the roost every time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/world/americas/15iht-14students.8345918.html
The key point is those scientists and engineers were not raised and trained by American society. The cold war drove the education of the handful of born-and-raised American scientists. The cold war is over.
Egypt, Chile and Saudi Arabia are European countries?
American students lagged far behind those nations, but earned scores that were comparable to peers in European nations like Slovakia and Estonia, and were well above countries like Egypt, Chile and Saudi Arabia.
So I have an Idea lets put the Pharamacys in the grocery store so the sick come in and get everyone else sick.
Thats the ticket.
No mod points at the moment, alas, or I would have awarded either "insightful" or "funny" to parent post.
It needs to be noted, though, that while learning the details of commands in archaic interfaces is a mind clogging pursuit, learning how to learn that kind of detail, when you need to do it, is a critical skill in a changing world. And then of course there is the matter of acquiring the wisdom to know when it would be a good thing to study out the language, or when it makes more sense to just script out your profound new ideas in Perl or Python and get some dull minded C or C++ code monkey to do the scuttwork.
Will
The key point is those scientists and engineers were not raised and trained by American society. The cold war drove the education of the handful of born-and-raised American scientists. The cold war is over.
That's why we're starting a new Cold War with China!
War is Peace!
Ignorance is Strength.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This overlooks a dramatic change in US higher education from 1900 to today. Math PhDs were not granted in the US until a little before 1900. This means that any professor with a PhD would be an import from Europe. Today, we still import a large number of PhDs, but we also educate an awful lot of PhD students from elsewhere. I imagine that the history in the sciences is somewhat similar. It says little that the US did not contribute to the intellectual world during our agrarian era. I would also tend to give more emphasis to the American rather than European-born descriptions of many immigrant scientists as the scientific climate here deserves as much credit as the environment of their birth. This is debatable with the WWII and post-war era due to fleeing the Nazis and taking Nazi scientists as spoils of war, but I think this is largely reflective of the US having one of the world's best systems of higher education while lacking an overly distinguished system of primary education.
Neil deGrasse Tyson.. Even odds vs random poster, I'll take some action on Neil's side.
You referred to office culture as "presentism." Would you be kind enough to elaborate? I looked it up, and I'm still not sure I know what you mean. Thanks.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
That statement is probably true for a signifigant percentage of American workers prior to about 1970. The US has always had an advantage in being able to attract immigrant labour, gaining a productive populace without having to bear the cost of raising and educating them. It's one of the things that made US such a competitive country.
However the flip side of this was that the American education and training sector was smaller than might be expected. This problem was slowly resolved during the 20th century, particularly during the 1950s with the GI programs and the Cold War as you mention.
The trouble is that the education and training sectors promoted during that time had a heavy STEM bent, and our society no longer values those professions. More significantly, due to this bent, other more traditional elements of the university such as the humanities were set aside and I would argue have not been picked up since.
The net effect of this is that the best schools in the US spend their time churning out narrowly educated scientists, technicians, technocrats and business students who ultimately have no idea how society should be run or what their place is in it beyond the specific narrow role in front of their noses. Worse, there are no longer productive industrial jobs for these people to be employed in and they have increasingly transferred their talents into ultimately destabilising professions such as the techno-financial sector, quantization-analysis services, modern-media relations, and the MBA industry.
Universities are effectively educating generations of idle hands with no civic sense or purpose. The result is essentially the rampant mischief we see all around us and ultimately the disintegration of rational, humane, civic society.
May the Maths Be with you!
The most successful courses that I've teach have a very high ratio of lab time (2/3) to theory time (1/3). One of the most enjoyable courses was a basic electricity course that I struggled with designing because of the time limit imposed - it was impossible to divide it into a traditional theory/lab split without losing significant content. The solution was to make it a 100% lab course and teach the theory on a need to know basis - Just In Time delivery of content!
Based on my experience, it always makes me wonder why we have theory classes at all. Most theory content can be easily researched by the student when directed so. I know that the real reason is an economical one and not an educational one. It is inexpensive to fill up a large lecture hall and pay for just one instructor to mindlessly lecture for a hour or more. It is expensive to pay many instructors or instructional assistants required to tutor small lab classes for hands-on learning.
You are a bigoted sack of shit. Regardless of who did what science, you bring nothing into this world other than disparegement and hate. You a complete sum.
Up until about 1970, essentially every significant "American" scientific discovery of accomplishment was the work of European-born and European-trained scientists and engineers.
So Illinois and South Dakota are European states then?
Most original Americans are descendants of refugees from Europe, so in most cases they're not so smart today IMHO.
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
As much as I enjoy America bashing, I think you're underestimating the illiteracy in other societies. Granted, the bible extremist may be fewer and less dominant, but America doesn't have a patent on stupidity. A couple of weeks ago I heard a Danish priest call the evolution theory "just a theory". What's important is arriving at a culture that doesn't idolize rampant lack of knowledge.
I learned a long time ago: there is no such thing as useless knowledge.
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
That piece of knowledge you learned so long ago: give it up, it is terribly out of date. Knowing how to take the cube root of an arbitrary number no longer has any usefulness since everybody who needs to do that has a calculator.
The world is changing. Do try to keep up with the group.
(mutters: Fortran, done that, best forgotten. Cobol, done that, best forgotten. Pascal, done that, best forgotten. awk, done that, oh the pain! Want to forget! Perl, done that, might need to do more. Python, haven't done that yet.)
Will