Western Australia had convicts arriving until 1868. But we had far more people arrive during the Gold Rush era than we ever got convicts. We also had an enormous influx after WWII, and during the construction of the Snowy Mountain Scheme.
The difference is that other countries don't run around claiming to be tho shining example of freedom whilst being wilding obsessed about rules. They don't claim to be the greatest example of democracy whilst having an electoral system that basically works on the basis that he with the most money can buy Government and Legislation. There are many things that are great about the American people, and some things that are great about American society. These pale into insignificance before the failings in light of the *claims* of Freedom and Democracy. Other countries show a lot about your upcoming elections on the news, mainly because its so mind boggling funny in light of the hypocrisy. Americans will (of course) see this as an attack on their country. The rest of the world waits with bated breath for the American people to demonstrate that they really care about Democracy and Freedom by voting, and breaking the stranglehold on power by the oligarchy of the wealthy.
Smaller classes are better than larger to be sure, but it's not a linear relation. There are a few problems with very small ( >= 3 ) classes, and many great advantages to classes of 8 to 12 (IMHO the "ideal" class sizes for maths and science, my disciplines).
Kids that are *solely* taught one-on-one can easily not gain multiple perspectives on content. They easily get the idea that there is only one "right" way to solve particular problems, when there is usually more than one way to do it.
Kids also need to learn group work skills in modern economies. This is very important.
Kids need the socialisation of peers. In public schools this also means that our kids have opportunities to mix with the kids we don't want them to. That's where parenting comes in.
Most importantly is the concept of peer-based-learning. Many/. readers will relate to the idea that they only really learnt something when they had to teach/tutor/coach it. PBL benefits the bright kids and the disadvantaged, and is probably the single most powerful tool in a teacher's arsenal.
I disagree with most of your other points, but support your right to say/believe them. Teaching is no longer the respected profession it once was. Teacher salaries are low considering the (a) qualifications (b) after-hours work and (b) responsibilities. What is the average salary of a 5 or 6 year University qualified person responsible for the welfare of between 180 (directly) and 1200 (indirectly) per day, where mistakes can have consequences that last for 70 years and more, and that is compounded by daily politics, policies and day-dream academic theories?
Finally, I do not believe that most parents can do a better job of teaching their kids than a good, vocationally motivated teacher who has many years teaching experience.
No, he was saying they tend to be better educated. I can see that your home schooling background has provided you with excellent literacy and comprehension skills. (ducks for cover)
But seriously, if you've home schooled your kids and have done a great job, why not consider getting into teaching? If you have home-schooled your kids then you obviously don't need the money (and you wont get much teaching!) because that was unpaid work. And you can change many lives for the better.
It's amazingly gratifying and humbling when you near a voice behind you "Mr F.? I don't know if you remember me but..." and you turn around to see someone you taught in 1984, who then tells you what a great life they have and how they think it's all your fault. Gratifying because it's nice to know you've done something well. Humbling because if you are any good as a teacher it was because you showed that kid the greatness that was within them, and not that you put it there.
Or you run into an old student who now has a PhD and they tell you that when they get stuck they remember what you said and that motivates them to persevere.
The other thing that people with a vocation to teach understand is the buzz you get when you see the "AHA!" moment strike. It doesn't happen every day, but it makes it so worth it when it does.
Teaching is hard, it's badly paid and unappreciated. It can also be intensely rewarding, and (for me at least) is meaningful and lets me feel that I'm contributing something useful. Not everyone can say that about their job.
Teachers in the US require a Bachelor's Degree. Elementary school teachers must have a degree in Elementary Education. Middle and high school teachers must have a degree matching their subject matter. Furthermore, most teachers are required to continue to educate themselves, taking between 3 and 12 credits of coursework every 3-5 years. Master's degrees are becoming more common, between 10-40% of teachers at most decently funded schools.
I think the key phrase here is "most decently funded schools". That is unfortunately a vast minority.
...unless we're talking about private schools, where unqualified and under-educated teachers are much more common.
This seems to be a predominantly American phenomena. Here in Australia (and in much of Europe) salaries are higher in private schools, but qualifications are also expected to be higher. School teachers with PhDs are like chicken's teeth in the public schools, but a lot of private schools have a few.
Education shouldn't be a social filter. But it too often is. Who gets to MIT or Harvard? Those who had parents who could afford the best schools, tutors and books. Those who were fed the best food (i.e. nutrition). Not those who were "unlucky" enough to be born to a crackhead mother with God-knows who as a father. Very few children of process workers, or children of farm labourers.
Should everyone get to go to the best tertiary institutions? No! But everyone should at least get the chance to show if they have what it takes to get there, regardless of where they came from. An education system that acts as a social filter does not give everyone an equitable chance to move forward (note I do not say an equal chance - that would be unfair). The classic example is the British public/grammar school system. Those who went to a Public school (which in Britain was what most other people would call an exclusive private school!) were the ones who would go a long way in the Public Service, or would be successful doctors, and would eventually drive Bentleys. Those who went to Grammar schools would be clerks and bookkeepers, those who went to "Comprehensive" schools became process workers, shop assistants and labourers.
It's terribly easy as a teacher to write exams or assignments that actually act as a social filter. Do you assume that the kid has broadband access at home? Social filter. Do you assume that the home has books in it? Social Filter. Do you assume that the kid has travelled a bit? Social filter. Do you assume that the kid's family knows particular professions socially? Social filter. Do you assume that the kid doesn't have to work 20 hours a week to help feed the family? Social filter. Do you assume that only one parent works full time? Social filter. Do you assume the kid has a quiet study area at home? Social filter. Do you assume that the kid has only 1.4 siblings? Social filter. Do you assume the kid can get to an art gallery, museum or public library, or that she has a kick-ass computer, that his parents are on drugs, that the kid is on drugs, that the kid roams the street at night, has VD, will fall pregnant at 16. Or perhaps you subconsciously assume that the drop-dead gorgeous cheer-leader will have a career plan that revolves around marrying well, even though she *might* be a person who could help crack problems like hunger, peace and cheap clean energy production if only given the right guidance.
Ah, you are talking about Education in the US, which is internationally recognised to be broken for all but the most advantaged. I was talking about Education in most of The Rest Of The Developed World.
A part of the problem in the US is that funding for public schools is largely determined by the amount of taxes paid by the people who live in that area (it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the dominant factor). In one sense this is fair - "I pay more taxes, so I expect a better return for my tax dollar from the state". But in another sense this is inequitable, as those who come from a lower socio-economic background are less likely to receive an education that will equip them to move beyond their origins. In this kind of environment home-schooling may well work better than grossly under-resourced public schools. Yet the kids that are home schooled are not likely to be able to appreciate the finer points of many subject areas. How many home schooled kids get to perform titrations, build a cloud chamber, get to learn how to use a lathe, learn to use a microscope properly, have access to a Crookes' Tube, get to make Thermite or have a parent who can teach them how to do interesting maths like transform general conics by the method of characteristic equations and eigenvalues?
Yes, there are parts of school that have to be endured - in particular what goes on in the playground. Guess what - dealing with bullies and freaks is something you have to learn to deal with your whole life. Yes there's going to be some things that just have to be dealt with - so there is at work for almost every adult. Imagine you had a job that just totally sucked - you were unhappy from the moment you woke and realised you had to go to work, until you finished for the day, but then you realised that you had to go again tomorrow. You change jobs right? Too many (i.e. any) kids see school like that. In most cases where there is at least an effort to provide a quality education the day has high points and low points. Rather than "Othello is something to be endured" there is a message we can send our kids "Education/School is something to be endured until you can escape" which dramatically reduces our kids' chances of learning.
The issue of the "state orphanage" is an really interesting one. One statistic I've seen is that the average 15yo in the US spends 21 hours per week watching TV, 5 minutes per week with Dad and 20 minutes per week with Mum (assuming they have 2 parents). Not all teachers are great teachers - to the contrary, as long as the economic returns from teaching are so dismal you will always have difficulty attracting the best and brightest into schools (except for those of us with a vocation). Yet we trust our kids with the TV, with Fox and Murdoch, with "America's Top Model" and "I'm a Celebrity" and "Dr Phil".
It's really easy to abrogate our responsibility as parents and *just* blame the schools, or to say that because we had a bad time at school then our kids have to. Or we could get involved - become part of your kids P&C (PTA). Become an activist. Insist that YOUR kid deserves the best education and the greatest chance in life. But back it up by being a part of your kids life, having a clue what going on in their lives, and by simply being there to listen to them.
Are you successful in your career? How much money do you have? How much do you really need? Could YOU make a difference as a teacher? Or in Curriculum or Policy reform? Or do you work 60 hours a week earning the big bucks, getting "just a few thousand dollars more", seeing your kids as they run out the door and finding out what they're up to as the police bring them home at 2am? What is more important to you - having an 80" plasma TV in every room or being able to dramatically improve the lives of thousands of people?
There are two professions that are grossly underpaid and disrespected in this modern age - parenting and teaching. As long as this is the case the quality of both will suffer. In turn this means that many people will have shallow, meaningless and miserable lives, yet it doesn't have to be that way.
Actually, for most of my life I've been a teacher, and caring is a huge part of the job. I care about the kid who isn't interested - how do I engage them? I care about the kids who fall asleep in class. I care about the kids who are bored because it's too easy for them. I care that I'm doing my best to prepare them for what could be a happy life. I care that I prepare them for the fact that they won't succeed at everything they do.
And I teach. I don't "give them material to learn", rather I try to lead them to a place where they "pick up" the content and practice, where they can make sense of it all. Pedagogy means "to lead the young", and that's what teachers do, they lead by example, instruction, motivation and discipline.
The methodology of delivering material and them accepting that only the best and brightest will learn it is discriminatory and inequitable. It promotes the idea that education is a socio-economic filter. Yet it's the people who don't learn under that model who most need to *understand* the material in their everyday lives. Take the sine ratio - the people who need to really appreciate what it is are the people running wheelbarrows full of concrete up and down ramps on building sites - if they don't have an intuitive, real world practical understanding (not a pure maths understanding) of how the weight distribution changes, and how an inclined plane alters the effort required, they have a shot back and knees before they're 40. Education as a social filter makes lives miserable. Education should empower and inform people to be able to make the best choices in life, for themselves, their families and their communities.
The only flaw is that curriculum does need to change. The phrase often used is "Curriculum is like a graveyard - more and more goes in yet very little goes out". When I was in High School as a senior, I had 6 subjects in total. I had maths and English every day, and Physics, Engineering Science and Chemistry 4 times a week. I had one period of PE per week, and 2 hours sport. I sat in a maths class 7 hours a week, and my English class 5.
Now students may do upwards of 12 to 14 subjects in their senior years. They have 3 or 4 hours of English per week, and all but those doing the "suicide course" do 3 hours per week of maths, sciences or languages. They might do 3 hours per week of Rugby, plus their PE and sport, 4 hours of "pastoral care", and they will probably get a "teacher free day".
Simplify the curriculum, encourage great teachers, engage the kids. Spend real money on the country's future. The catch is that the conservative forces in politics want to specify detailed curriculum, don't trust teachers (after all they tend to be leftward leaning by inclination), see the kids as a problem that has to be kept off the streets and can't look at spending money over a period longer than an electoral term.
Parents should be part of the system, after all we'd like to think that responsible parents are major stakeholders in their kid's futures. But not all parents are responsible. And what about the "average" parent, who left school at 15 or 16, and entered the workforce? They can't help their kids with thermodynamics, calculus or Keats. Furthermore it has been shown that the majority of kids do not learn as well from their parents as they do from great teachers and from their peers. They want their parents to be Mum and Dad, not their teachers (Yes, some kids do well at home school - they are the exception, not the rule). Even great teachers find it terribly hard to teach their own kids.
Parents need to be involved, they need to instil in their kids an appreciation for the importance of learning, and they need to *listen* to their kids. They also need to be informed what is going on at school, and they need to care about that. They have to avoid at all costs giving the impression that school is something to be endured until they can leave - kids that learn *that* lesson from home rarely discover their potential.
Another major factor in the Finland education system (and Korea and Ontario) is that the Curriculum is weakly defined. Research shows ( http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/syllabus/snr_syll_rv_ppr_yr10_nxt_gn.pdf ) that where there is a weakly defined curriculum, high trust in teacher's professional judgement and high expectations that the students will succeed there is a very high level of educational quality. In Finland teachers study for 5 years to became qualified - more than most lawyers.
In countries like the US, Australia and the UK, where many teachers are 3-4 year qualified, and where many teachers have adopted the profession as an occupation of last resort, or where the profession is gender biased because "women need a job with family friendly hours" (implying that a woman's real job is being at home with the family), where teacher salaries are low with respect to the average income of tertiary educated people, and where politicians and not educators dictate curriculum, there is a low quality of education. Only the best and brightest get the chance to excel, unless students are lucky enough to get a truly vocational teacher who is sufficiently trusted by administration to run the class the way they know works.
Yep, there's a lot of ways to do it. If I was to list all the "clever" ways to perform arithmetic I'd still be typing in 3 days time. 18 x 23 = 18 x 25 - 2 x 18 = 4.5 x 100 - 36 = 450 - 36 = 414 is faster (and simpler) still. Or 18 x 20 + 3 x ( 3 x 6) = 360 + 9 x 6 = 414. The point is that simple maths can give a good measure of maths ability IF you look at HOW they get the answers and not the final number itself. The first demonstrates they can think proportionally, the second reveals associativity. These are the clues that people can do maths, not their ability to memorise rules. Your method reveals ability to cross the geometric/algebraic realms, so they might (and I stress might) understand the equivalence between them. Further questioning would show that, questioning about HOW and WHY they chose that approach.
Actually, you can get a great view of ability from low-end stuff, particularly with primary and high-school kids, which you won't see so easily with harder maths, except for perhaps identifying the precocious talents. The trick is to look at *how* they get their answers. For example:
17 x 19 by mental arithmetic
1) Uses a calculator, because its bigger than times tables
2) Uses the pen-and-paper algorithm. This kid can remember rules
3) 17 x 20 = 340, take away 17 gives 323 . A good sign.
Then ask for 18 x 23
The kid who says "2 x 17 is 34, 4 x 17 is 68, 68 plus 323 is 391, 391 + 23 is 414" has admirable maths ability, in particular will be good at algebra and symbolic manipulation.
The kid who says "2 x 18 is 36, 360 + 36 = 396, 396 + 18 = 414" has lots of maths ability, and may be a great mathematician one day IF we teachers lead them well.
There has been a lot of work over the last 20 years on the so-called "gender gap". The problem then was that specialised maths teachers were predominantly male, and they exhibited gender-bias in the classroom (which is an easy trap to fall into when its the boys who interact in the classroom, whilst the girls sit there thinking "girls can't do maths"). Now (in the name of equity) we have a situation where many boys are being left behind. We have a hell of a lot of maths teachers who are not very good at either maths or teaching it, we have had a bias towards employing female maths teachers (in the name of equity) in primary and high schools (compounded by the feminist argument that "all men are rapists" so we have fewer men willing to enter the profession and be automatically suspect). Because of the lower standard of maths teachers generally (but we do have some great teachers, male and female out there, but they are getting hard to find) we have had the standards lowered to preserve the illusion that the kids are learning maths. Lowering expectations results in lower performance, both in the teachers and the students.
Back to the main point.... as long as we don't allow these cultural lies to invade our classrooms, as long as we let the kids know that we believe and expect that they will learn this stuff and that it is really easy, as long as we don't say stuff like "OK, we're doing limits this module, and you'll have to work really hard because this is *hard* so don't get upset if you can't get it because most of you won't get it" or "this exam will be the hardest you've ever done, and I expect that most of you will struggle with it", then we can help almost every student discover their inner maths nerd.
In 30 years I've only met 4 students who couldn't do maths. In one case it was really a kid who *wouldn't* do maths, in two more it was badly managed ADHD with parents who were most of the problem, and in the last it was a mature entry uni student who thought that she could do a science degree with only a 4th grade maths background without doing 12 months of bridging work. This is out of thousands of kids. Break the culture of mediocrity, show them it can be done, that it makes sense and that they can do it and even excel.
There is a culture amongst many girls that "girls can't do maths". I've worked teaching maths at many levels for many years, including specialised remedial coaching for Koori (Indigenous Australian) kids, and I think I've seen almost all the permutations. Almost every non-asian girl I've seen (including even my own daughter) gets the impression by age 9 that girls can't do maths.
What I find curious is that a large part of maths is done in Broca's Region, which is also where most language is done. Yet girls are "expected" to be better at languages.
I've found that most girl's are thrilled when they discover that they can do maths, that it's easy, and even fun. They take great delight in putting the boys in their place. The key is to build their self-esteem so they don't decide to become shallow air-heads around 15 when there's cultural rewards in doing so.
Unless of course clever OSS hackers decide that a distributed server could work, then all the central server does is compute checksums of the various nodes. Would it be easy? No! Could it work? I don't see why not. Some kind of spanning tree algorithm to tie together those "closest" in the game world, and crippled IRC to handle the chat.
It is interesting what's happening to kids these days. In our paranoia and fear we've taken away a lot of the risk-taking behaviours that we used to enjoy.
The problem is that unless kids take risks they never learn their own limitations, and they don't develop properly. Kids have a biological imperative to take risks - it's wired into them. By taking away all the 'old' risks, the kids then engage in the risks that are left to them - meeting strangers from the Internet, smoking Ice and engaging in extreme sexual behaviours.
So instead of a few kids getting their arms, legs and necks broken we have kids getting their brains fried and their personalities broken along with lots of nasty STDs.
I believe the answer is to give kids the old risks, and be vigilant (even oppressive) regarding the 'new' risks. I say this from the perspective of a father of 5 (yes that means I've done it at least 5 times and as such am not a 'real'/. reader).
"Mathematics is merely the language used to describe the Physics. It's a tool folks, and nothing more."
mathematics is MUCH more than a language for physics.
Yes, but in the context of this discussion I don't think that the deeper philosophical questions about neo-platonism or the nature of cognition really apply. In the context of becoming an astrophysicist maths is just a tool or language that succinctly describes relationships between observed or hypothesised entities.
Why do so many people insist on confusing the two? Mathematics is merely the language used to describe the Physics. It's a tool folks, and nothing more.
That said, having a Maths degree can be either a very good or very bad basis for pontgrad physics. If you insist on seeing Physics as nothing more than messy but fun maths, you'll never be a great Physicist. If however you see the Maths as a succinct and powerful way to describe the Physics you are on the way to being good at Physics. A lot has to do with what kind of Maths degree you have - don't expect number theory to be a great help, but if you have done lots of analysis, partial differential equations and statistical mechanics you have a good basis to work from.
I'd suggest that the "pop-sci" books are a good way to get a focus on the physics, and from there start to read subjects that build the maths. Get your head around the Physics - you'll be able to learn the specialised maths as you go IF you keep in mind that the maths is not the same as the physics.
The suggestion to look at Maxwell's Equations is a very good one. If you can "perform the surface integrals without blinking" and move between bases fluently then you'll have a good start to a common point were many freak out.
The above is written from the perspective of a mathematician who used to lecture in maths and physics by the way. Physicists have a different perspective, but all the really good ones I know were great physicists who happened to be good at maths, not the other way around.
Ahhh... but NZ is very crinkly. So crinkly in fact that you have seen all the flat bits in the Lord of the Rings movie. As a result many things in NZ are profoundly non-Euclidean, such as the Kiwi bird, which is the only bird that lays an egg bigger than itself. It also leads to such beasts as the parrot that lives on a diet consisting of auto-mobiles.
The huge fractal dimension of NZ means that one hectare of grass in NZ is the equivalent of a hundred in more 'normal' parts of the world. This is all part of God's great love for New Zealand - after all, "God so loved New Zealand that He gave them boiling mud".
How is this different from OpenCroquet ( http://www.opencroquet.org/index.php/Main_Page ) other than it requires a server (i.e. sells boxes) and is in Java (not Smalltalk)? Look at Qwaq ( http://www.qwaq.com/ ) to see some really interesting applications of Croquet for real-time conferencing.
I think that when you look at the historical meaning of the term it is quite clear that socialism has evolved from the original works of Peroux, Marx and Engels. Much of their writings were reactions to the prevailing injustices and inequities of their time and place.
I was raised in a Marxist family - we had pictures of Marx and Stalin on the wall of our living room, and we were investigated by ASIO and ASIS. I was arrested several times handing out copies of "The Worker" on the streets of the Brisbane CBD. I am now a member of the Left faction of the ALP. One thing I've learnt (over many years) is that the revolutionary model and total worker control of production will not work sustainably, and that such societies are in fact transitional to a "Social Democratic" model where the State exerts control over essential production and ensures that programs of Social Justice work. The State is held hostage to the workers through the Electoral process and the Constitution.
One of the saddest things I've seen is the argument within the Left over ideological purity. Too often Conferences devolve into slanging matches over how this group is weak in its' compromise on Marxism, whilst others slag over how the Marxists are dinosaurs who have failed to see how the complete state ownership of all property removes the incentive for excellence from all but a small number of individuals, who become a new elite class, and hence cause the class struggle to become pointless.
I believe that your definition of Socialism is too restrictive. All Socialist systems involve strong measures of Social Justice and State Control (which may include ownership) of Essential Services and Production. Some Socialist systems go much further.
Hmm, I was under the impression that the invention happened in France, but due to a cock-up by Management they didn't implement it right and it broke down. The Americans didn't respect the French prior art, and reimplemented it there, but with a different set of cock-ups (in particular the "Electoral College" - One Vote One Value eh?)
Quote: A socialist society means that private property doesn't exist. Everything has been "collectivised".
You are describing a Communist system, not a Socialist one. A Socialist country believes that society has an obligation to care for those who cannot care for themselves, and that the Government is the instrument and will of Society. I am aware that many Americans are not aware of the difference, primarily because Communist states describe themselves as Socialist, but then again so did the German state in the 30s and 40s.
So here in Oz (a Socialist country) we have Universal Health Care, Unemployment Benefits, Pensions, subsidised rent for the poor, University without having to pay fees up front for examples. In the USA (not a Socialist country) you have far more wealth than we do, but you also have far more poverty and sickness. We have far fewer very wealthy people per capita, but we also have far fewer who are cast on life's junkheap.
People don't die in the driveway of a hospital giving birth just because their insurance doesn't cover that hospital here. Conversely it's much harder to make millions and retire before 45 here.
Actually Rupert inherited millions from his father, Keith Murdoch. Keith Murdoch was a media baron based in Sydney, and had already made a substantial fortune before he died. Rupert just continued what his father had done.
Slashdot Mirror
Western Australia had convicts arriving until 1868. But we had far more people arrive during the Gold Rush era than we ever got convicts. We also had an enormous influx after WWII, and during the construction of the Snowy Mountain Scheme.
The difference is that other countries don't run around claiming to be tho shining example of freedom whilst being wilding obsessed about rules. They don't claim to be the greatest example of democracy whilst having an electoral system that basically works on the basis that he with the most money can buy Government and Legislation. There are many things that are great about the American people, and some things that are great about American society. These pale into insignificance before the failings in light of the *claims* of Freedom and Democracy. Other countries show a lot about your upcoming elections on the news, mainly because its so mind boggling funny in light of the hypocrisy. Americans will (of course) see this as an attack on their country. The rest of the world waits with bated breath for the American people to demonstrate that they really care about Democracy and Freedom by voting, and breaking the stranglehold on power by the oligarchy of the wealthy.
Smaller classes are better than larger to be sure, but it's not a linear relation. There are a few problems with very small ( >= 3 ) classes, and many great advantages to classes of 8 to 12 (IMHO the "ideal" class sizes for maths and science, my disciplines).
Kids that are *solely* taught one-on-one can easily not gain multiple perspectives on content. They easily get the idea that there is only one "right" way to solve particular problems, when there is usually more than one way to do it.
Kids also need to learn group work skills in modern economies. This is very important.
Kids need the socialisation of peers. In public schools this also means that our kids have opportunities to mix with the kids we don't want them to. That's where parenting comes in.
Most importantly is the concept of peer-based-learning. Many /. readers will relate to the idea that they only really learnt something when they had to teach/tutor/coach it. PBL benefits the bright kids and the disadvantaged, and is probably the single most powerful tool in a teacher's arsenal.
I disagree with most of your other points, but support your right to say/believe them. Teaching is no longer the respected profession it once was. Teacher salaries are low considering the (a) qualifications (b) after-hours work and (b) responsibilities. What is the average salary of a 5 or 6 year University qualified person responsible for the welfare of between 180 (directly) and 1200 (indirectly) per day, where mistakes can have consequences that last for 70 years and more, and that is compounded by daily politics, policies and day-dream academic theories?
Finally, I do not believe that most parents can do a better job of teaching their kids than a good, vocationally motivated teacher who has many years teaching experience.
No, he was saying they tend to be better educated. I can see that your home schooling background has provided you with excellent literacy and comprehension skills. (ducks for cover)
But seriously, if you've home schooled your kids and have done a great job, why not consider getting into teaching? If you have home-schooled your kids then you obviously don't need the money (and you wont get much teaching!) because that was unpaid work. And you can change many lives for the better.
It's amazingly gratifying and humbling when you near a voice behind you "Mr F.? I don't know if you remember me but..." and you turn around to see someone you taught in 1984, who then tells you what a great life they have and how they think it's all your fault. Gratifying because it's nice to know you've done something well. Humbling because if you are any good as a teacher it was because you showed that kid the greatness that was within them, and not that you put it there.
Or you run into an old student who now has a PhD and they tell you that when they get stuck they remember what you said and that motivates them to persevere.
The other thing that people with a vocation to teach understand is the buzz you get when you see the "AHA!" moment strike. It doesn't happen every day, but it makes it so worth it when it does.
Teaching is hard, it's badly paid and unappreciated. It can also be intensely rewarding, and (for me at least) is meaningful and lets me feel that I'm contributing something useful. Not everyone can say that about their job.
Teachers in the US require a Bachelor's Degree. Elementary school teachers must have a degree in Elementary Education. Middle and high school teachers must have a degree matching their subject matter. Furthermore, most teachers are required to continue to educate themselves, taking between 3 and 12 credits of coursework every 3-5 years. Master's degrees are becoming more common, between 10-40% of teachers at most decently funded schools.
I think the key phrase here is "most decently funded schools". That is unfortunately a vast minority.
...unless we're talking about private schools, where unqualified and under-educated teachers are much more common.
This seems to be a predominantly American phenomena. Here in Australia (and in much of Europe) salaries are higher in private schools, but qualifications are also expected to be higher. School teachers with PhDs are like chicken's teeth in the public schools, but a lot of private schools have a few.
Education shouldn't be a social filter. But it too often is. Who gets to MIT or Harvard? Those who had parents who could afford the best schools, tutors and books. Those who were fed the best food (i.e. nutrition). Not those who were "unlucky" enough to be born to a crackhead mother with God-knows who as a father. Very few children of process workers, or children of farm labourers.
Should everyone get to go to the best tertiary institutions? No! But everyone should at least get the chance to show if they have what it takes to get there, regardless of where they came from. An education system that acts as a social filter does not give everyone an equitable chance to move forward (note I do not say an equal chance - that would be unfair). The classic example is the British public/grammar school system. Those who went to a Public school (which in Britain was what most other people would call an exclusive private school!) were the ones who would go a long way in the Public Service, or would be successful doctors, and would eventually drive Bentleys. Those who went to Grammar schools would be clerks and bookkeepers, those who went to "Comprehensive" schools became process workers, shop assistants and labourers.
It's terribly easy as a teacher to write exams or assignments that actually act as a social filter. Do you assume that the kid has broadband access at home? Social filter. Do you assume that the home has books in it? Social Filter. Do you assume that the kid has travelled a bit? Social filter. Do you assume that the kid's family knows particular professions socially? Social filter. Do you assume that the kid doesn't have to work 20 hours a week to help feed the family? Social filter. Do you assume that only one parent works full time? Social filter. Do you assume the kid has a quiet study area at home? Social filter. Do you assume that the kid has only 1.4 siblings? Social filter. Do you assume the kid can get to an art gallery, museum or public library, or that she has a kick-ass computer, that his parents are on drugs, that the kid is on drugs, that the kid roams the street at night, has VD, will fall pregnant at 16. Or perhaps you subconsciously assume that the drop-dead gorgeous cheer-leader will have a career plan that revolves around marrying well, even though she *might* be a person who could help crack problems like hunger, peace and cheap clean energy production if only given the right guidance.
Ah, you are talking about Education in the US, which is internationally recognised to be broken for all but the most advantaged. I was talking about Education in most of The Rest Of The Developed World.
A part of the problem in the US is that funding for public schools is largely determined by the amount of taxes paid by the people who live in that area (it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the dominant factor). In one sense this is fair - "I pay more taxes, so I expect a better return for my tax dollar from the state". But in another sense this is inequitable, as those who come from a lower socio-economic background are less likely to receive an education that will equip them to move beyond their origins. In this kind of environment home-schooling may well work better than grossly under-resourced public schools. Yet the kids that are home schooled are not likely to be able to appreciate the finer points of many subject areas. How many home schooled kids get to perform titrations, build a cloud chamber, get to learn how to use a lathe, learn to use a microscope properly, have access to a Crookes' Tube, get to make Thermite or have a parent who can teach them how to do interesting maths like transform general conics by the method of characteristic equations and eigenvalues?
Yes, there are parts of school that have to be endured - in particular what goes on in the playground. Guess what - dealing with bullies and freaks is something you have to learn to deal with your whole life. Yes there's going to be some things that just have to be dealt with - so there is at work for almost every adult. Imagine you had a job that just totally sucked - you were unhappy from the moment you woke and realised you had to go to work, until you finished for the day, but then you realised that you had to go again tomorrow. You change jobs right? Too many (i.e. any) kids see school like that. In most cases where there is at least an effort to provide a quality education the day has high points and low points. Rather than "Othello is something to be endured" there is a message we can send our kids "Education/School is something to be endured until you can escape" which dramatically reduces our kids' chances of learning.
The issue of the "state orphanage" is an really interesting one. One statistic I've seen is that the average 15yo in the US spends 21 hours per week watching TV, 5 minutes per week with Dad and 20 minutes per week with Mum (assuming they have 2 parents). Not all teachers are great teachers - to the contrary, as long as the economic returns from teaching are so dismal you will always have difficulty attracting the best and brightest into schools (except for those of us with a vocation). Yet we trust our kids with the TV, with Fox and Murdoch, with "America's Top Model" and "I'm a Celebrity" and "Dr Phil".
It's really easy to abrogate our responsibility as parents and *just* blame the schools, or to say that because we had a bad time at school then our kids have to. Or we could get involved - become part of your kids P&C (PTA). Become an activist. Insist that YOUR kid deserves the best education and the greatest chance in life. But back it up by being a part of your kids life, having a clue what going on in their lives, and by simply being there to listen to them.
Are you successful in your career? How much money do you have? How much do you really need? Could YOU make a difference as a teacher? Or in Curriculum or Policy reform? Or do you work 60 hours a week earning the big bucks, getting "just a few thousand dollars more", seeing your kids as they run out the door and finding out what they're up to as the police bring them home at 2am? What is more important to you - having an 80" plasma TV in every room or being able to dramatically improve the lives of thousands of people?
There are two professions that are grossly underpaid and disrespected in this modern age - parenting and teaching. As long as this is the case the quality of both will suffer. In turn this means that many people will have shallow, meaningless and miserable lives, yet it doesn't have to be that way.
Actually, for most of my life I've been a teacher, and caring is a huge part of the job. I care about the kid who isn't interested - how do I engage them? I care about the kids who fall asleep in class. I care about the kids who are bored because it's too easy for them. I care that I'm doing my best to prepare them for what could be a happy life. I care that I prepare them for the fact that they won't succeed at everything they do.
And I teach. I don't "give them material to learn", rather I try to lead them to a place where they "pick up" the content and practice, where they can make sense of it all. Pedagogy means "to lead the young", and that's what teachers do, they lead by example, instruction, motivation and discipline.
The methodology of delivering material and them accepting that only the best and brightest will learn it is discriminatory and inequitable. It promotes the idea that education is a socio-economic filter. Yet it's the people who don't learn under that model who most need to *understand* the material in their everyday lives. Take the sine ratio - the people who need to really appreciate what it is are the people running wheelbarrows full of concrete up and down ramps on building sites - if they don't have an intuitive, real world practical understanding (not a pure maths understanding) of how the weight distribution changes, and how an inclined plane alters the effort required, they have a shot back and knees before they're 40. Education as a social filter makes lives miserable. Education should empower and inform people to be able to make the best choices in life, for themselves, their families and their communities.
MOD PARENT UP!
The only flaw is that curriculum does need to change. The phrase often used is "Curriculum is like a graveyard - more and more goes in yet very little goes out". When I was in High School as a senior, I had 6 subjects in total. I had maths and English every day, and Physics, Engineering Science and Chemistry 4 times a week. I had one period of PE per week, and 2 hours sport. I sat in a maths class 7 hours a week, and my English class 5.
Now students may do upwards of 12 to 14 subjects in their senior years. They have 3 or 4 hours of English per week, and all but those doing the "suicide course" do 3 hours per week of maths, sciences or languages. They might do 3 hours per week of Rugby, plus their PE and sport, 4 hours of "pastoral care", and they will probably get a "teacher free day".
Simplify the curriculum, encourage great teachers, engage the kids. Spend real money on the country's future. The catch is that the conservative forces in politics want to specify detailed curriculum, don't trust teachers (after all they tend to be leftward leaning by inclination), see the kids as a problem that has to be kept off the streets and can't look at spending money over a period longer than an electoral term.
Parents should be part of the system, after all we'd like to think that responsible parents are major stakeholders in their kid's futures. But not all parents are responsible. And what about the "average" parent, who left school at 15 or 16, and entered the workforce? They can't help their kids with thermodynamics, calculus or Keats. Furthermore it has been shown that the majority of kids do not learn as well from their parents as they do from great teachers and from their peers. They want their parents to be Mum and Dad, not their teachers (Yes, some kids do well at home school - they are the exception, not the rule). Even great teachers find it terribly hard to teach their own kids.
Parents need to be involved, they need to instil in their kids an appreciation for the importance of learning, and they need to *listen* to their kids. They also need to be informed what is going on at school, and they need to care about that. They have to avoid at all costs giving the impression that school is something to be endured until they can leave - kids that learn *that* lesson from home rarely discover their potential.
Another major factor in the Finland education system (and Korea and Ontario) is that the Curriculum is weakly defined. Research shows ( http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/syllabus/snr_syll_rv_ppr_yr10_nxt_gn.pdf ) that where there is a weakly defined curriculum, high trust in teacher's professional judgement and high expectations that the students will succeed there is a very high level of educational quality. In Finland teachers study for 5 years to became qualified - more than most lawyers.
In countries like the US, Australia and the UK, where many teachers are 3-4 year qualified, and where many teachers have adopted the profession as an occupation of last resort, or where the profession is gender biased because "women need a job with family friendly hours" (implying that a woman's real job is being at home with the family), where teacher salaries are low with respect to the average income of tertiary educated people, and where politicians and not educators dictate curriculum, there is a low quality of education. Only the best and brightest get the chance to excel, unless students are lucky enough to get a truly vocational teacher who is sufficiently trusted by administration to run the class the way they know works.
Yep, there's a lot of ways to do it. If I was to list all the "clever" ways to perform arithmetic I'd still be typing in 3 days time. 18 x 23 = 18 x 25 - 2 x 18 = 4.5 x 100 - 36 = 450 - 36 = 414 is faster (and simpler) still. Or 18 x 20 + 3 x ( 3 x 6) = 360 + 9 x 6 = 414. The point is that simple maths can give a good measure of maths ability IF you look at HOW they get the answers and not the final number itself. The first demonstrates they can think proportionally, the second reveals associativity. These are the clues that people can do maths, not their ability to memorise rules. Your method reveals ability to cross the geometric/algebraic realms, so they might (and I stress might) understand the equivalence between them. Further questioning would show that, questioning about HOW and WHY they chose that approach.
Actually, you can get a great view of ability from low-end stuff, particularly with primary and high-school kids, which you won't see so easily with harder maths, except for perhaps identifying the precocious talents. The trick is to look at *how* they get their answers. For example:
17 x 19 by mental arithmetic
1) Uses a calculator, because its bigger than times tables
2) Uses the pen-and-paper algorithm. This kid can remember rules
3) 17 x 20 = 340, take away 17 gives 323 . A good sign.
Then ask for 18 x 23
The kid who says "2 x 17 is 34, 4 x 17 is 68, 68 plus 323 is 391, 391 + 23 is 414" has admirable maths ability, in particular will be good at algebra and symbolic manipulation.
The kid who says "2 x 18 is 36, 360 + 36 = 396, 396 + 18 = 414" has lots of maths ability, and may be a great mathematician one day IF we teachers lead them well.
There has been a lot of work over the last 20 years on the so-called "gender gap". The problem then was that specialised maths teachers were predominantly male, and they exhibited gender-bias in the classroom (which is an easy trap to fall into when its the boys who interact in the classroom, whilst the girls sit there thinking "girls can't do maths"). Now (in the name of equity) we have a situation where many boys are being left behind. We have a hell of a lot of maths teachers who are not very good at either maths or teaching it, we have had a bias towards employing female maths teachers (in the name of equity) in primary and high schools (compounded by the feminist argument that "all men are rapists" so we have fewer men willing to enter the profession and be automatically suspect). Because of the lower standard of maths teachers generally (but we do have some great teachers, male and female out there, but they are getting hard to find) we have had the standards lowered to preserve the illusion that the kids are learning maths. Lowering expectations results in lower performance, both in the teachers and the students.
Back to the main point.... as long as we don't allow these cultural lies to invade our classrooms, as long as we let the kids know that we believe and expect that they will learn this stuff and that it is really easy, as long as we don't say stuff like "OK, we're doing limits this module, and you'll have to work really hard because this is *hard* so don't get upset if you can't get it because most of you won't get it" or "this exam will be the hardest you've ever done, and I expect that most of you will struggle with it", then we can help almost every student discover their inner maths nerd.
In 30 years I've only met 4 students who couldn't do maths. In one case it was really a kid who *wouldn't* do maths, in two more it was badly managed ADHD with parents who were most of the problem, and in the last it was a mature entry uni student who thought that she could do a science degree with only a 4th grade maths background without doing 12 months of bridging work. This is out of thousands of kids. Break the culture of mediocrity, show them it can be done, that it makes sense and that they can do it and even excel.
There is a culture amongst many girls that "girls can't do maths". I've worked teaching maths at many levels for many years, including specialised remedial coaching for Koori (Indigenous Australian) kids, and I think I've seen almost all the permutations. Almost every non-asian girl I've seen (including even my own daughter) gets the impression by age 9 that girls can't do maths.
What I find curious is that a large part of maths is done in Broca's Region, which is also where most language is done. Yet girls are "expected" to be better at languages.
I've found that most girl's are thrilled when they discover that they can do maths, that it's easy, and even fun. They take great delight in putting the boys in their place. The key is to build their self-esteem so they don't decide to become shallow air-heads around 15 when there's cultural rewards in doing so.
Unless of course clever OSS hackers decide that a distributed server could work, then all the central server does is compute checksums of the various nodes. Would it be easy? No! Could it work? I don't see why not. Some kind of spanning tree algorithm to tie together those "closest" in the game world, and crippled IRC to handle the chat.
It is interesting what's happening to kids these days. In our paranoia and fear we've taken away a lot of the risk-taking behaviours that we used to enjoy.
The problem is that unless kids take risks they never learn their own limitations, and they don't develop properly. Kids have a biological imperative to take risks - it's wired into them. By taking away all the 'old' risks, the kids then engage in the risks that are left to them - meeting strangers from the Internet, smoking Ice and engaging in extreme sexual behaviours.
So instead of a few kids getting their arms, legs and necks broken we have kids getting their brains fried and their personalities broken along with lots of nasty STDs.
I believe the answer is to give kids the old risks, and be vigilant (even oppressive) regarding the 'new' risks. I say this from the perspective of a father of 5 (yes that means I've done it at least 5 times and as such am not a 'real' /. reader).
Yes, but in the context of this discussion I don't think that the deeper philosophical questions about neo-platonism or the nature of cognition really apply. In the context of becoming an astrophysicist maths is just a tool or language that succinctly describes relationships between observed or hypothesised entities.
Why do so many people insist on confusing the two? Mathematics is merely the language used to describe the Physics. It's a tool folks, and nothing more.
That said, having a Maths degree can be either a very good or very bad basis for pontgrad physics. If you insist on seeing Physics as nothing more than messy but fun maths, you'll never be a great Physicist. If however you see the Maths as a succinct and powerful way to describe the Physics you are on the way to being good at Physics. A lot has to do with what kind of Maths degree you have - don't expect number theory to be a great help, but if you have done lots of analysis, partial differential equations and statistical mechanics you have a good basis to work from.
I'd suggest that the "pop-sci" books are a good way to get a focus on the physics, and from there start to read subjects that build the maths. Get your head around the Physics - you'll be able to learn the specialised maths as you go IF you keep in mind that the maths is not the same as the physics.
The suggestion to look at Maxwell's Equations is a very good one. If you can "perform the surface integrals without blinking" and move between bases fluently then you'll have a good start to a common point were many freak out.
The above is written from the perspective of a mathematician who used to lecture in maths and physics by the way. Physicists have a different perspective, but all the really good ones I know were great physicists who happened to be good at maths, not the other way around.
Ahhh... but NZ is very crinkly. So crinkly in fact that you have seen all the flat bits in the Lord of the Rings movie. As a result many things in NZ are profoundly non-Euclidean, such as the Kiwi bird, which is the only bird that lays an egg bigger than itself. It also leads to such beasts as the parrot that lives on a diet consisting of auto-mobiles.
The huge fractal dimension of NZ means that one hectare of grass in NZ is the equivalent of a hundred in more 'normal' parts of the world. This is all part of God's great love for New Zealand - after all, "God so loved New Zealand that He gave them boiling mud".
How is this different from OpenCroquet ( http://www.opencroquet.org/index.php/Main_Page ) other than it requires a server (i.e. sells boxes) and is in Java (not Smalltalk)? Look at Qwaq ( http://www.qwaq.com/ ) to see some really interesting applications of Croquet for real-time conferencing.
I think that when you look at the historical meaning of the term it is quite clear that socialism has evolved from the original works of Peroux, Marx and Engels. Much of their writings were reactions to the prevailing injustices and inequities of their time and place.
I was raised in a Marxist family - we had pictures of Marx and Stalin on the wall of our living room, and we were investigated by ASIO and ASIS. I was arrested several times handing out copies of "The Worker" on the streets of the Brisbane CBD. I am now a member of the Left faction of the ALP. One thing I've learnt (over many years) is that the revolutionary model and total worker control of production will not work sustainably, and that such societies are in fact transitional to a "Social Democratic" model where the State exerts control over essential production and ensures that programs of Social Justice work. The State is held hostage to the workers through the Electoral process and the Constitution.
One of the saddest things I've seen is the argument within the Left over ideological purity. Too often Conferences devolve into slanging matches over how this group is weak in its' compromise on Marxism, whilst others slag over how the Marxists are dinosaurs who have failed to see how the complete state ownership of all property removes the incentive for excellence from all but a small number of individuals, who become a new elite class, and hence cause the class struggle to become pointless.
I believe that your definition of Socialism is too restrictive. All Socialist systems involve strong measures of Social Justice and State Control (which may include ownership) of Essential Services and Production. Some Socialist systems go much further.
Hmm, I was under the impression that the invention happened in France, but due to a cock-up by Management they didn't implement it right and it broke down. The Americans didn't respect the French prior art, and reimplemented it there, but with a different set of cock-ups (in particular the "Electoral College" - One Vote One Value eh?)
Quote: A socialist society means that private property doesn't exist. Everything has been "collectivised".
You are describing a Communist system, not a Socialist one. A Socialist country believes that society has an obligation to care for those who cannot care for themselves, and that the Government is the instrument and will of Society. I am aware that many Americans are not aware of the difference, primarily because Communist states describe themselves as Socialist, but then again so did the German state in the 30s and 40s.
So here in Oz (a Socialist country) we have Universal Health Care, Unemployment Benefits, Pensions, subsidised rent for the poor, University without having to pay fees up front for examples. In the USA (not a Socialist country) you have far more wealth than we do, but you also have far more poverty and sickness. We have far fewer very wealthy people per capita, but we also have far fewer who are cast on life's junkheap.
People don't die in the driveway of a hospital giving birth just because their insurance doesn't cover that hospital here. Conversely it's much harder to make millions and retire before 45 here.
Actually Rupert inherited millions from his father, Keith Murdoch. Keith Murdoch was a media baron based in Sydney, and had already made a substantial fortune before he died. Rupert just continued what his father had done.
Precise, not accurate. A scale possesses precision, the individual application determines the accuracy.