So professors get paid just to show up
on
Professors vs. WiFi
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why the hell do we need professors then? If they are paid just to show up and force you to look at them, what exactly is it that they do if they dont give good lectures?
Hard work is one thing, but we are PAYING them, they arent free, they arent giving up anything here, we pay them to do what we want them to do, and thats give an exciting lecture.
I dont think you'll find alot of college students who agree with your opinion that lectures should be boring and dull, people want their moneys worth.
All courses can be entertaining to the majority of the people if the courses are interactive and engaging.
You want to make a boring course like C programming fun? Find someone who can speak REALLY well, not someone from india with an accent. Find someone who can communicate the basics of programming but in a unique way, complete with jokes, and very detailed explainations including visual.
The good lectures usually arent 100 percent focused strictly on that topic, they drift off alittle bit but the lecturer makes sure to get the point across, students get to talk and ask questions, talk about personal things, so that it feels more like group discussion instead of just blah blah blah blah where students just sit and listen.
Re:Maybe if teachers worked with technology instea
on
Professors vs. WiFi
·
· Score: 2
IM can be used so students who want to ask questions in private without annoying other students can.
I dont believe just by paying im required to get a passing grade but i do expect them to pass me if I do my part of the contract, if it says I have to pass test X and i pass it, I better get a passing grade.
The people are getting paid to do a job and paid to go to those meetings, but say your job is to entertain your customers, say you are a COMEDIAN, and your only role is to keep their attention and make them laugh, and these people boo and ignoore you.
Do you get mad at the audience and say "why arent you cheering? stop booing me!! if you dont stop booing me I'm going to charge you TWICE!!!! PAY ATTENTION TO ME OR ELSE"
Or do you actually do your job and stop blaming the people you work for?
So whats the role of the professor that you pay?
on
Professors vs. WiFi
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
So I can be a professor, I can say a bunch of words, blah blah blah blah for about an hour or two, and you the student are required to stare at me while I say "blah blah blah" for 2 hours, and if you dont stare directly at me, I get to keep your money but you get to pay me again to take my class again until you can stand my class for 2 hours of listening to "blah blah blah"
Who wins here? Why should I the student pay YOU the professor to give YOU the professor my attention? What do I get out of this deal?
I should be paying you to GET my attention, to EARN it by giving good lectures, not paying you just for you to show up, because thats bullshit.
Why? Maybe if professors USED the technology
on
Professors vs. WiFi
·
· Score: 2
They wouldnt have to block it.
Maybe if the professor actually got on IM and talked to students, maybe if the professor interacted more with them instead of just talking a boring scripted lecture students would have reason to pay attention.
Look, I wont pay attention to a lecture unless the lecture is teaching me something i didnt know, or the lecture is actually engaging in some way, that causes me to interact with the teacher or with other students.
If a teacher is just reciting a book, I dont need to pay attention i can just read the book.
The teacher passes responsiblity to student
on
Professors vs. WiFi
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Because the professor cannot properly do their job they punish the students? Its not the students job to be interested in what you have to say, its YOUR job to keep their interest and give exciting lectures, its THEIR job to do the required work and pass the required tests as well as attend class.
There is no requirement to ENJOY the class or pay attention in the class, if the lecture is worthless crap they can read from the book or get on their own why should they pay attention.
If I take a class on C, and the teacher is explaining hello world and I already know C why the hell should I bother paying attention, and if the teacher has an accent when teaching this garbage like one of my teachers from india had, or a greek accent, forget it, I'm not even going to bother wasting my time trying to figure out what they are saying, Ill show up, and ill do what I want until the class is over.
Unlike highschool, people pay to go to college. Its not logical to pay for something you dont REALLY want.
So if you pay to hear them lecture and they just suck, its not your fault, you paid them, they just suck. Highschool is different, you dont really want to be there, you are just stuck there.
Professors need to earn their salaries, at my school the students actually EVALUATE the teachers, teachers who cannot give good lectures recieve poor ratings.
Maybe if teachers worked with technology instead
on
Professors vs. WiFi
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
of bashing the technology and blaming it for them being terrible and boring with their lectures they'd be fine.
Look, technology is good, WiFi is good, a smart teacher would use WiFi and the fact that all the students have laptops and AIM to their advantage, to get the students communicating better with each other through AIM, and to talk about the class.
The teacher could even bring his own laptop, add their AIM screen names to his AIM account, and talk to students via AIM.
This is college not highschool, a teacher cannot try to blame the students for lack of attention, students pay you with THEIR money so that you can get their attention, these people want to learn and pay to learn, if you arent doing a good job and they think your lecture is a complete waste of time they dont have to pay attention.
I've had great teachers give lectures and it doesnt even feel like a lecture, it feels like conversation because the teacher gets people involved, its even entertaining sometimes!
Then we have lectures where teachers read off a peice of paper going down a list of things they must talk about, perhaps some boring as hell subject like computer programmer, and the teacher is from india and cannot speak english properly, some people just should not lecture!!!
In this situation you'd be better off getting your information from the internet than listening to the lecturer guide you step by step on how to write hello world.
Wi Fi is good, schools need to learn to use technology to their advantage.
Sure anyone can develop ability (not talent) in any area if they are motivated, but who are you to force people to develop abilities they dont want or need and arent motivated to develop?
Sure I could develop my number crunching abilities, but it would cost me years of my life to do this and ultimately to me it would not be worth it.
Just like we can make every child a master in computer programming and let everyone write their own software on their Linux OS, but lets be serious, why should I force everyone to do this just because I like doing this?
yeah a mathmetician must be, but not everyone is going to be a mathmetician this is why i say we cant really teach problem sovling, its not a skill its a talent.
"Most people can do both reasonably well. The number of people who fail math classes is small (less than 10% in my experience)."
Yeah thats why Americans do so well on their SATs, thats why Americans do sooooo well at Math. Just because 90% get passed doesnt mean 90% are on level in terms of knowledge, most people get passed but dont really know math. Thats why we get lower scores in Math than Japan.
You have here (as you will do repeatedly throughout your post) ignored the fact that I am advocating teach both basic math facts and mathematical reasoning. I am assuming here that what you mean by the formulas is similar to my mathematical reasoning, but when I was in school the phrase just learn the formulas had more of a rote memorization feel to it.
The formulas and rules are all you need to memorize. Formulas and Algorithms have nothing to do with "reasoning" because you can have good reasoning ability without knowing the routines, the formulas, the algorithms, reasoning is just logic. You can make lots of silly statements like numbers have nothing to do with math. On some level (once you reach a high enough understanding of the subject) these are true, but they don't really serve as useful a purpose when you're dealing with younger minds who are experiencing these ideas for the first time. Here are some more that are equally true and equally dubious in value when teaching:
Even on the most basic level numbers have nothing to do with math. Notes have nothing to do with music, you dont need to know how to read and write notes to make music, knowing how to geometry and trig have nothing to do with knowing how to draw.
Sure these things can help you do something but these things are just tools, numbers are tools, the values are a tool, it doesnt matter the level because teaching in levels is just how you learned, you dont have to learn something at level 1-2-3-4, you can teach something on multiple levels at once if the kids are smart.
Um, that's not right. If 3+3+3 = A+A+A then your second line is not equal to A^3. This is, of course, clear to someone who know (presumably from memorizing, but possibly from using a calculator) that 3^3 = 27 and all those threes that you have on the other side of the equal sign do not. see there you go focusing on numbers and not looking at the formula.
The formula gives you 3 squared, which is 27. Its not cubed or at least I dont think its cubed but I mix the terms up. IT could be cubed, the term doesnt matter, only the formula used to find the solution matters.
You are spending way too much time on this one example, and getting the math wrong anyway. Why would you want to teach a student what cubed or squared was anyway (excepting as far as to say and perhaps have them memorize that we have special words for the two most common exponents)? Is the goal to teach them math or to teach them how to work with numbers? By the way my math is right, I checked it with the calculator.
Other people in other repies to other posts that you've made have adequately pointed out why it is useful to be able to do math when a calculator isn't present,
Yeah and its also useful to know how to ride a horse so that when your car breaks down you can get around, its also useful to be able to do algebra in yourr head without pen or paper, just because something is useful doesnt mean the general population should spend years learning it.
Then why on earth would you not try to teach it to everyone? It is really starting to sound to me like you aren't good at memorizing I'm not good at memorizing stuff which ill never use. Alot of others are also bad at Math, why should we waste our time? Sure its useful for some people to know this but not for everyone.
Should everyone learn C, C++ and Java so that if their computer somehow runs out of software or has a bug they can fix it themselves? Hell no, thats what programmers are for, we dont need to write our own software so why do we need to do our own number crunching? Let mathematicians who enjoy this do it for us.
Should everyone master anatomy because we all need doctors? should we all learn several languages so someday when we are in afganastan we can communicate better? Please, we are talking about average people here, most of them will never use this garbage and will forget it, in fact my parents dont remember the math garbage they were taught, even my friends dont remember most of the garbage they were taught, simply because they never had to use it, the calculator was always there and faster.
l. Just because some people can not do something is not a reasonable reason that we shouldn't teach it to people who can (and I believe most people can be reasonably proficient with math facts and mathematical reasoning).
Most people can write their own operating systems, most people can be their own doctors, most people CAN learn to speak 7 languages but why do we all need these skills? Especially if its not fun learning this stuff, why should it be a REQUIREMENT for everyone? I Dont mind it being an elective for people who want to be mathmeticians or who enjoy doing this but most Americans hate Math, most do BAD in Math, check out the test scores, we score among the lowest, face it, half of this country is good at math and the other half is not, the ones who arent good at Math are capablee of learning all the garbage but they forget everything they learned within a year and only learn it to pass a test or get a certain score on the SATs. Teach stuff to people who care, dont waste time teaching stuff to people who dont want to learn it and who will never remember it.
" Clearly we are capable of doing both, and if you're going to function effectively in the real world, you'd better be able to do both. Please keep in mind that I'm not saying that your approach is "wrong". I'm just saying that it is not a good way to educate people who will have to function in society."
Most people are not good at doing both(look at how many people fail math) however, also we have enough human calculators, the number crunching followers do not innovate, its the creative ones who understand how things work who make all the innovation. What good are you if you can do well on jepordy? you dont help society at all.
" I don't think anyone would argue that you can't teach multiplication as repeated additions, but --apart from a useful too to introduce the topic-- why would you want to do that? Here are a few reasons not to "just teach concepts/formulas": "
The goal is not to teach number crunching but to teach math I thought? Math is just formulas, numbers have nothing to do with math, numbers are like saying that programming is all about interger variables, its not, sure it uses variables but theres alot more to it.
1. It doesn't scale well. Fine. So you're teach multiplication as repeated additions. What are you going to do when you have to teach them exponents? It's easy for children who can multiply as an independent operation to extend their understanding to repeated multiplying, but I would not like to try to convince a classroom that learning that (3+3+3)+(3+3+3)+(3+3+3) is a particularely eligant or useful skill."
The reason to teach them the formulas without teaching them the numbers is it teaches them what really matters. The formula is simple.
This formula explains exactly what A squared is, this formula explains EXACTLY.
Your way of teaching would have kids using this formula without even knowing what the hell is going on. Dont tell me kids cant learn this, its alot easier than memorizing the times tables. Here I'll explain it all in one sentence if you cannot remember the formula.
A number which adds to itself by its own value then repeats the process 3 times is squared. 3+3+3 = 9, then add 3 nine times to get the answer. "# It wastes too much time. Children who don't know basic math facts (memorized, not computed) are at a disadvantage when they are learning higher level math. I'm not talking about calculus here; they are at a disadvantage learning algebra. While other students are distributing, students who don't know math facts can't keep up with the arithmetic."
Thats why we invented the calculator. Einstien failed arithmetic.
# It's not helpful in life. When you're shopping after Christmas and need to figure out what something that is 30% off will cost, it's good to know that 30% is about 1/3 and how to divide by 3 in your head.
Not everyone is capable of doing this. Einstien couldnt do it. Sure its good to be a human calculator if you are gifted in that area but you cannot make everyone into a number cruncher, its not a natural ability for everyone just like not everyone has good handwriting, and no matter how much they practice they will never be able to do this stuff in their head.
The goal here is what? Give people a better understanding of math? Or filter out the number crunchers who are good at memorizing facts from the creative types who manipulate and innovate the facts to create new ones?
You can teach someone to draw by making them learn the facts but they will never truely be an artist. You can take an artist and try to teach them the proper way to draw but they will never be able to draw in any style but their own. When you take math and turn it into just pure number crunching what you are doing is telling people to be human calculators, sure this is useful to you, and sure it might even be useful for everyone, but some people can do this easily because their brain works this way and others just are never going to remember their multiplication tables, will NEVER be able to do math in their head and will ALWAYS need a calculator unless its simple addition/subtraction.
This is why I say why should we bother focusing on number crunching and calculations when we have calculators to do this? The chance of someone growing up in this age without a calculator is slim, the value of being able to do math in your head becomes less as technology advances eventually calculations will cease to matter, computers will be everywhere and all that will matter are the formulas you feed into them.
A person has to be taught to want to learn, this is the job of society, and the job of parents.
If the software difficulty level adapts to the kid theres no problem, a kid should set the difficulty level.
Theres no such thing as lazy, even lazy people like learning stuff, they just dont learn productive information therefore they get deemed lazy due to their lack of interest.
Its a teachers job to make students interested, its a students job to at least try to learn, if a teacher is good the students will be interested because they will find value in whats being taught, if the teacher sucks, students will all become lazy no matter how intelligent.
IF someone has ADD in theory the computer should be their solution. If they have ADD they simply cannot handle the structure, so why not let them learn via computers in a less structured way?
Currently the smaller classes bullshit is just special education and resource rooms, where they dont learn anything at all because the classes are dumbed down.
Bullys, Jocks, Cliques, etc, sure you learn about the social structure and it only harms you in the long run when you learn how cruel and how ignorant people actually are.
So whats the difference? why not give the students computer software? Teachers dont have time to actually teach 30 kids, so they give them all the same book and its no different than computer instruction in fact computer instruction does a better job because its more personalized.
"Until people embed them in their skin, there will be many times in one's life when one doesn't have a calculator - not to mention a scientific/graphing calc. " There will also be many times when one does not have pen and paper. Should we stop taking notes? Should we all learn to memorize everything we hear and always learn to do all math in our heads?
"Uh, no. My 15 year old TI-55III could do numerical integration, so I could easily come up with a numerical answer to a problem without knowing how to do the integration - just follow the instructions and punch a few buttons."
If a computer can do it in a push of a button, why does the general population need to learn this? Let mathematicians learn this.
"Funny, I'm in construction, and I often ask contractors to use more "primitive" tools than the latest and greatest. I can, and have, asked people to dig with a shovel instead of a backhoe, when the backhoe breaks down and I've got other trades waiting. Or told them to use a screwdriver instead of a screwgun on finish work. Those who can't or won't do things "the old fashioned way" when appropriate either get kicked off the project or not asked to bid my work again."
The old fashioned way worked fine before new ways were invented. Before paper was invented the old fashioned way worked fine, before the car was invented everyone knew how to ride horses, should we all learn how to ride horses by default due to the fact that someday all cars may stop existing?
"You stick to your calculator, friend, and I'll keep doing the simple stuff in my head or on paper. Let's see who gets screwed more often when getting change and giving tips. Don't those dark, romantic restaurants suck when you need to use your solar calculator?"
Using paper makes you as bad as he is, why not just do everything in your head and while you are at it, learn to ride horses because someday your Car might break down.
Yeah but its not as useful in reality as C. While its good to use programming languages to teach math concepts, its also good to teach languages which students can actually use in the real world.
Its like teaching someone to read and write, sure you can teach them just how to read and write in cursive but if they dont know how to print what good will this be when they are adults?
"Well, we disagree then. I don't think you can learn math very well if you start out using calculators or computers or any "black box" that gives you answers when you give it questions. Kids should develop mathematical discipline first."
Theres a difference between number crunching and math. If you know programming, you are telling me in order to be a programmer you must reinvent the wheel every time to build your own foundation of code? You cant use code already written because then you wont be able to be a good programmer? Thats BS.
Thats like saying in order to be a good programmer you must memorize the syntax instead of the concepts. Look, I dont know all the syntax of C, I just know the core concepts of C, and with these concepts I can build any application. I use refrence manuals, other peoples code, whatever it takes to get my application created, and I can learn ANY programming language thats even slightly like C due to the concepts, So I also know pascal, because its so much like C. You understand that math just like programming languages is not about the syntax its about the concepts, you can get the answers to the syntax questions from books, other peoples code, etc, as long as you know the concepts you can program in a language with syntax you dont even know. I could write a program in Java right now and I dont really know the syntax, I could write a program in C++, I can write a program in Basic.
Memorizing the syntax for all languages is like not using the calculator in Math, sure you know the languages syntax but this doesnt make you a good programmer. Sure you may know problem solving but this does not make you good at math because you need to know the concepts more so than the numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the hell do we need professors then? If they are paid just to show up and force you to look at them, what exactly is it that they do if they dont give good lectures?
Hard work is one thing, but we are PAYING them, they arent free, they arent giving up anything here, we pay them to do what we want them to do, and thats give an exciting lecture.
I dont think you'll find alot of college students who agree with your opinion that lectures should be boring and dull, people want their moneys worth.
All courses can be entertaining to the majority of the people if the courses are interactive and engaging.
You want to make a boring course like C programming fun? Find someone who can speak REALLY well, not someone from india with an accent.
Find someone who can communicate the basics of programming but in a unique way, complete with jokes, and very detailed explainations including visual.
The good lectures usually arent 100 percent focused strictly on that topic, they drift off alittle bit but the lecturer makes sure to get the point across, students get to talk and ask questions, talk about personal things, so that it feels more like group discussion instead of just blah blah blah blah where students just sit and listen.
IM can be used so students who want to ask questions in private without annoying other students can.
I dont believe just by paying im required to get a passing grade but i do expect them to pass me if I do my part of the contract, if it says I have to pass test X and i pass it, I better get a passing grade.
Resources are unlimited, colleges get money from tuition, not to mention they get money from the state.
The people are getting paid to do a job and paid to go to those meetings, but say your job is to entertain your customers, say you are a COMEDIAN, and your only role is to keep their attention and make them laugh, and these people boo and ignoore you.
Do you get mad at the audience and say "why arent you cheering? stop booing me!! if you dont stop booing me I'm going to charge you TWICE!!!! PAY ATTENTION TO ME OR ELSE"
Or do you actually do your job and stop blaming the people you work for?
So I can be a professor, I can say a bunch of words, blah blah blah blah for about an hour or two, and you the student are required to stare at me while I say "blah blah blah" for 2 hours, and if you dont stare directly at me, I get to keep your money but you get to pay me again to take my class again until you can stand my class for 2 hours of listening to "blah blah blah"
Who wins here? Why should I the student pay YOU the professor to give YOU the professor my attention? What do I get out of this deal?
I should be paying you to GET my attention, to EARN it by giving good lectures, not paying you just for you to show up, because thats bullshit.
They wouldnt have to block it.
Maybe if the professor actually got on IM and talked to students, maybe if the professor interacted more with them instead of just talking a boring scripted lecture students would have reason to pay attention.
Look, I wont pay attention to a lecture unless the lecture is teaching me something i didnt know, or the lecture is actually engaging in some way, that causes me to interact with the teacher or with other students.
If a teacher is just reciting a book, I dont need to pay attention i can just read the book.
Because the professor cannot properly do their job they punish the students? Its not the students job to be interested in what you have to say, its YOUR job to keep their interest and give exciting lectures, its THEIR job to do the required work and pass the required tests as well as attend class.
There is no requirement to ENJOY the class or pay attention in the class, if the lecture is worthless crap they can read from the book or get on their own why should they pay attention.
If I take a class on C, and the teacher is explaining hello world and I already know C why the hell should I bother paying attention, and if the teacher has an accent when teaching this garbage like one of my teachers from india had, or a greek accent, forget it, I'm not even going to bother wasting my time trying to figure out what they are saying, Ill show up, and ill do what I want until the class is over.
Unlike highschool, people pay to go to college. Its not logical to pay for something you dont REALLY want.
So if you pay to hear them lecture and they just suck, its not your fault, you paid them, they just suck. Highschool is different, you dont really want to be there, you are just stuck there.
Professors need to earn their salaries, at my school the students actually EVALUATE the teachers, teachers who cannot give good lectures recieve poor ratings.
of bashing the technology and blaming it for them being terrible and boring with their lectures they'd be fine.
Look, technology is good, WiFi is good, a smart teacher would use WiFi and the fact that all the students have laptops and AIM to their advantage, to get the students communicating better with each other through AIM, and to talk about the class.
The teacher could even bring his own laptop, add their AIM screen names to his AIM account, and talk to students via AIM.
This is college not highschool, a teacher cannot try to blame the students for lack of attention, students pay you with THEIR money so that you can get their attention, these people want to learn and pay to learn, if you arent doing a good job and they think your lecture is a complete waste of time they dont have to pay attention.
I've had great teachers give lectures and it doesnt even feel like a lecture, it feels like conversation because the teacher gets people involved, its even entertaining sometimes!
Then we have lectures where teachers read off a peice of paper going down a list of things they must talk about, perhaps some boring as hell subject like computer programmer, and the teacher is from india and cannot speak english properly, some people just should not lecture!!!
In this situation you'd be better off getting your information from the internet than listening to the lecturer guide you step by step on how to write hello world.
Wi Fi is good, schools need to learn to use technology to their advantage.
Sure anyone can develop ability (not talent) in any area if they are motivated, but who are you to force people to develop abilities they dont want or need and arent motivated to develop?
Sure I could develop my number crunching abilities, but it would cost me years of my life to do this and ultimately to me it would not be worth it.
Just like we can make every child a master in computer programming and let everyone write their own software on their Linux OS, but lets be serious, why should I force everyone to do this just because I like doing this?
yeah a mathmetician must be, but not everyone is going to be a mathmetician this is why i say we cant really teach problem sovling, its not a skill its a talent.
Or somehow your parents taught you to read and write programs before you could walk, as If I can believe that.
"Most people can do both reasonably well. The number of people who fail math classes is small (less than 10% in my experience)."
Yeah thats why Americans do so well on their SATs, thats why Americans do sooooo well at Math. Just because 90% get passed doesnt mean 90% are on level in terms of knowledge, most people get passed but dont really know math. Thats why we get lower scores in Math than Japan.
You have here (as you will do repeatedly throughout your post) ignored the fact that I am advocating teach both basic math facts and mathematical reasoning. I am assuming here that what you mean by the formulas is similar to my mathematical reasoning, but when I was in school the phrase just learn the formulas had more of a rote memorization feel to it.
The formulas and rules are all you need to memorize. Formulas and Algorithms have nothing to do with "reasoning" because you can have good reasoning ability without knowing the routines, the formulas, the algorithms, reasoning is just logic.
You can make lots of silly statements like numbers have nothing to do with math. On some level (once you reach a high enough understanding of the subject) these are true, but they don't really serve as useful a purpose when you're dealing with younger minds who are experiencing these ideas for the first time. Here are some more that are equally true and equally dubious in value when teaching:
Even on the most basic level numbers have nothing to do with math. Notes have nothing to do with music, you dont need to know how to read and write notes to make music, knowing how to geometry and trig have nothing to do with knowing how to draw.
Sure these things can help you do something but these things are just tools, numbers are tools, the values are a tool, it doesnt matter the level because teaching in levels is just how you learned, you dont have to learn something at level 1-2-3-4, you can teach something on multiple levels at once if the kids are smart.
Um, that's not right. If 3+3+3 = A+A+A then your second line is not equal to A^3. This is, of course, clear to someone who know (presumably from memorizing, but possibly from using a calculator) that 3^3 = 27 and all those threes that you have on the other side of the equal sign do not. see there you go focusing on numbers and not looking at the formula.
The formula gives you 3 squared, which is 27. Its not cubed or at least I dont think its cubed but I mix the terms up. IT could be cubed, the term doesnt matter, only the formula used to find the solution matters.
You are spending way too much time on this one example, and getting the math wrong anyway. Why would you want to teach a student what cubed or squared was anyway (excepting as far as to say and perhaps have them memorize that we have special words for the two most common exponents)? Is the goal to teach them math or to teach them how to work with numbers? By the way my math is right, I checked it with the calculator.
Other people in other repies to other posts that you've made have adequately pointed out why it is useful to be able to do math when a calculator isn't present,
Yeah and its also useful to know how to ride a horse so that when your car breaks down you can get around, its also useful to be able to do algebra in yourr head without pen or paper, just because something is useful doesnt mean the general population should spend years learning it.
Then why on earth would you not try to teach it to everyone? It is really starting to sound to me like you aren't good at memorizing
I'm not good at memorizing stuff which ill never use. Alot of others are also bad at Math, why should we waste our time? Sure its useful for some people to know this but not for everyone.
Should everyone learn C, C++ and Java so that if their computer somehow runs out of software or has a bug they can fix it themselves? Hell no, thats what programmers are for, we dont need to write our own software so why do we need to do our own number crunching? Let mathematicians who enjoy this do it for us.
Should everyone master anatomy because we all need doctors? should we all learn several languages so someday when we are in afganastan we can communicate better? Please, we are talking about average people here, most of them will never use this garbage and will forget it, in fact my parents dont remember the math garbage they were taught, even my friends dont remember most of the garbage they were taught, simply because they never had to use it, the calculator was always there and faster.
l. Just because some people can not do something is not a reasonable reason that we shouldn't teach it to people who can (and I believe most people can be reasonably proficient with math facts and mathematical reasoning).
Most people can write their own operating systems, most people can be their own doctors, most people CAN learn to speak 7 languages but why do we all need these skills? Especially if its not fun learning this stuff, why should it be a REQUIREMENT for everyone? I Dont mind it being an elective for people who want to be mathmeticians or who enjoy doing this but most Americans hate Math, most do BAD in Math, check out the test scores, we score among the lowest, face it, half of this country is good at math and the other half is not, the ones who arent good at Math are capablee of learning all the garbage but they forget everything they learned within a year and only learn it to pass a test or get a certain score on the SATs. Teach stuff to people who care, dont waste time teaching stuff to people who dont want to learn it and who will never remember it.
" Clearly we are capable of doing both, and if you're going to function effectively in the real world, you'd better be able to do both. Please keep in mind that I'm not saying that your approach is "wrong". I'm just saying that it is not a good way to educate people who will have to function in society."
Most people are not good at doing both(look at how many people fail math) however, also we have enough human calculators, the number crunching followers do not innovate, its the creative ones who understand how things work who make all the innovation. What good are you if you can do well on jepordy? you dont help society at all.
" I don't think anyone would argue that you can't teach multiplication as repeated additions, but --apart from a useful too to introduce the topic-- why would you want to do that? Here are a few reasons not to "just teach concepts/formulas": "
The goal is not to teach number crunching but to teach math I thought? Math is just formulas, numbers have nothing to do with math, numbers are like saying that programming is all about interger variables, its not, sure it uses variables but theres alot more to it.
1. It doesn't scale well. Fine. So you're teach multiplication as repeated additions. What are you going to do when you have to teach them exponents? It's easy for children who can multiply as an independent operation to extend their understanding to repeated multiplying, but I would not like to try to convince a classroom that learning that (3+3+3)+(3+3+3)+(3+3+3) is a particularely eligant or useful skill."
3+3+3 = A+A+A
(A+A+A + A+A+A + A+A+A) + (A+A+A + A+A+A + A+A+A) + (A+A+A + A+A+A + A+A+A) = A^3
The reason to teach them the formulas without teaching them the numbers is it teaches them what really matters.
The formula is simple.
This formula explains exactly what A squared is, this formula explains EXACTLY.
Your way of teaching would have kids using this formula without even knowing what the hell is going on. Dont tell me kids cant learn this, its alot easier than memorizing the times tables. Here I'll explain it all in one sentence if you cannot remember the formula.
A number which adds to itself by its own value then repeats the process 3 times is squared.
3+3+3 = 9, then add 3 nine times to get the answer.
"# It wastes too much time. Children who don't know basic math facts (memorized, not computed) are at a disadvantage when they are learning higher level math. I'm not talking about calculus here; they are at a disadvantage learning algebra. While other students are distributing, students who don't know math facts can't keep up with the arithmetic."
Thats why we invented the calculator. Einstien failed arithmetic.
# It's not helpful in life. When you're shopping after Christmas and need to figure out what something that is 30% off will cost, it's good to know that 30% is about 1/3 and how to divide by 3 in your head.
Not everyone is capable of doing this. Einstien couldnt do it. Sure its good to be a human calculator if you are gifted in that area but you cannot make everyone into a number cruncher, its not a natural ability for everyone just like not everyone has good handwriting, and no matter how much they practice they will never be able to do this stuff in their head.
The goal here is what? Give people a better understanding of math? Or filter out the number crunchers who are good at memorizing facts from the creative types who manipulate and innovate the facts to create new ones?
You can teach someone to draw by making them learn the facts but they will never truely be an artist. You can take an artist and try to teach them the proper way to draw but they will never be able to draw in any style but their own. When you take math and turn it into just pure number crunching what you are doing is telling people to be human calculators, sure this is useful to you, and sure it might even be useful for everyone, but some people can do this easily because their brain works this way and others just are never going to remember their multiplication tables, will NEVER be able to do math in their head and will ALWAYS need a calculator unless its simple addition/subtraction.
This is why I say why should we bother focusing on number crunching and calculations when we have calculators to do this? The chance of someone growing up in this age without a calculator is slim, the value of being able to do math in your head becomes less as technology advances eventually calculations will cease to matter, computers will be everywhere and all that will matter are the formulas you feed into them.
A person has to be taught to want to learn, this is the job of society, and the job of parents.
If the software difficulty level adapts to the kid theres no problem, a kid should set the difficulty level.
Theres no such thing as lazy, even lazy people like learning stuff, they just dont learn productive information therefore they get deemed lazy due to their lack of interest.
Its a teachers job to make students interested, its a students job to at least try to learn, if a teacher is good the students will be interested because they will find value in whats being taught, if the teacher sucks, students will all become lazy no matter how intelligent.
Damn I couldnt even read when I was 3, how the hell did you know basic?
IF someone has ADD in theory the computer should be their solution. If they have ADD they simply cannot handle the structure, so why not let them learn via computers in a less structured way?
Currently the smaller classes bullshit is just special education and resource rooms, where they dont learn anything at all because the classes are dumbed down.
Yeah in private schools where theres good teachers and small classrooms.
But when theres 50 kids and a teacher who doesnt teach, well then the student just learns from the book
I think learning from computer software is more efficient than from a static book.
Bullys, Jocks, Cliques, etc, sure you learn about the social structure and it only harms you in the long run when you learn how cruel and how ignorant people actually are.
Currently teachers cant really teach either, theres too many kids in a class.
Software can let a kid learn at his own pace.
Most teachers just give students books.
So whats the difference? why not give the students computer software? Teachers dont have time to actually teach 30 kids, so they give them all the same book and its no different than computer instruction in fact computer instruction does a better job because its more personalized.
"Until people embed them in their skin, there will be many times in one's life when one doesn't have a calculator - not to mention a scientific/graphing calc.
"
There will also be many times when one does not have pen and paper. Should we stop taking notes? Should we all learn to memorize everything we hear and always learn to do all math in our heads?
"Uh, no. My 15 year old TI-55III could do numerical integration, so I could easily come up with a numerical answer to a problem without knowing how to do the integration - just follow the instructions and punch a few buttons."
If a computer can do it in a push of a button, why does the general population need to learn this? Let mathematicians learn this.
"Funny, I'm in construction, and I often ask contractors to use more "primitive" tools than the latest and greatest. I can, and have, asked people to dig with a shovel instead of a backhoe, when the backhoe breaks down and I've got other trades waiting. Or told them to use a screwdriver instead of a screwgun on finish work. Those who can't or won't do things "the old fashioned way" when appropriate either get kicked off the project or not asked to bid my work again."
The old fashioned way worked fine before new ways were invented. Before paper was invented the old fashioned way worked fine, before the car was invented everyone knew how to ride horses, should we all learn how to ride horses by default due to the fact that someday all cars may stop existing?
"You stick to your calculator, friend, and I'll keep doing the simple stuff in my head or on paper. Let's see who gets screwed more often when getting change and giving tips. Don't those dark, romantic restaurants suck when you need to use your solar calculator?"
Using paper makes you as bad as he is, why not just do everything in your head and while you are at it, learn to ride horses because someday your Car might break down.
You cant teach someone something by reptition if they never learn the concepts it becomes gibberish in the end.
You can make someone do something a million times and i they never know why they are doing it they wont remember it.
Yeah but its not as useful in reality as C.
While its good to use programming languages to teach math concepts, its also good to teach languages which students can actually use in the real world.
Its like teaching someone to read and write, sure you can teach them just how to read and write in cursive but if they dont know how to print what good will this be when they are adults?
"Well, we disagree then. I don't think you can learn math very well if you start out using calculators or computers or any "black box" that gives you answers when you give it questions. Kids should develop mathematical discipline first."
Theres a difference between number crunching and math. If you know programming, you are telling me in order to be a programmer you must reinvent the wheel every time to build your own foundation of code? You cant use code already written because then you wont be able to be a good programmer? Thats BS.
Thats like saying in order to be a good programmer you must memorize the syntax instead of the concepts. Look, I dont know all the syntax of C, I just know the core concepts of C, and with these concepts I can build any application. I use refrence manuals, other peoples code, whatever it takes to get my application created, and I can learn ANY programming language thats even slightly like C due to the concepts, So I also know pascal, because its so much like C. You understand that math just like programming languages is not about the syntax its about the concepts, you can get the answers to the syntax questions from books, other peoples code, etc, as long as you know the concepts you can program in a language with syntax you dont even know. I could write a program in Java right now and I dont really know the syntax, I could write a program in C++, I can write a program in Basic.
Memorizing the syntax for all languages is like not using the calculator in Math, sure you know the languages syntax but this doesnt make you a good programmer. Sure you may know problem solving but this does not make you good at math because you need to know the concepts more so than the numbers.