It's not about "self-esteem", it's about human dignity.
Hmm. "superiority complex"? Something about pots and kettles comes to mind. Newsflash: if there's nothing inherently wrong with being popular (and who said there was?), there's also nothing inherently wrong with being *un*popular. Sure, not every outcast is a misunderstood genius, or even simply a smart kid getting picked on for that reason and that reason alone. However, it's clear from the messages on this board that a good many of us "outcasts" do fit into one of those categories.
But other people have addressed those issues in response here. My own issue is slightly different. A lot is said about the difference between "chat rooms" (and there is *so* much more to Net communication than what we call chat rooms) and the "real world". However, speaking as a chronic user of telnet talkers ("spod", as we say), I have to clear something up. The Net isn't simply a place to be "snide and cynical". It's where we make friends, have intelligent conversations, and get to know people on a mental rather than a physical level. It's been more useful to me in learning how to get along with people than my twelve years in public school were. I wasn't a Net person while I was an outcast -- I am now, and I have more friends than I did before.
There's a general privileging of face-to-face contact which is, quite frankly, undeserved. I use the Net to keep in contact with my friends from high school whose company I still value, and I also make new friends online. Some of these new friends have become some of my closer friends, although they live thousands of miles away. Saying "hey, how's it going" by a water cooler or chatting about current events with a group of acquaintances is not more *real* than having long, in-depth conversations about people's innermost thoughts and desires. It's not better than offering a virtual shoulder to cry on and a friendly ear. There are real people behind every one of the online names, talking by typing and communicating with a world of people that most people who stay in the "real world" will never meet.
It's not always like that, certainly -- there are idiots everywhere. (Oh, and the reason we feel superior sometimes to most of the people around us is that, in many ways, we *are* -- we're definitely on a different intelligence level. Most people aren't...that's why they're the average and we're not.) But it's only fair to see both sides and not to dismiss a whole culture as "pasty-faced, pudgy kids". That has to be one of the most insulting things I've ever read, btw. I'd expect that almost anywhere except a forum like this.
Not all teachers are competent. Certainly not all of them (or even most of them, really, despite my own experiences) are *in*competent, but some fit the description fairly well. I cite the instance of my sixth-grade teacher who called a conference with my father about my "learning disability". She said I didn't know how to read, that I was pretending. This after I'd been in the gifted program since first grade, checked more than 10 books out of the school library every week until they changed the policy (to only allow 3 books per week), and been permitted to take reading classes a year ahead of my grade level since third grade. Oh, and my first-grade teacher never taught me to read. My father did, well before the age of 6. So yes, he did know "the first thing" about it, and I still read more and faster than most people my age...or twice my age, for that matter.
I've had good teachers, I've had bad ones, I've even had *great* ones. Few of those, but that's the breaks. I understand others have had better and worse experiences than I have. I'm just mentioning my experience to show that parents *can* teach their kids to read -- and they *should*, as far as I'm concerned. 6 years old is too late to start learning. (Oh, and the best teacher I ever had was my father; raw intelligence and patience count for more than a degree does. The best teachers have both of those as well as their degrees.)
When I have children -- I expect to, someday, not soon, but someday -- I intend to do with them what my father (and mother) did with me. I'll use his methods, which were remarkably simple and didn't include "teaching phonics" as such. There is no one right way to teach children to read -- whatever works well is right, and his way worked for me. I hope it works as well with my children.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about "self-esteem", it's about human dignity.
Hmm. "superiority complex"? Something about pots and kettles comes to mind. Newsflash: if there's nothing inherently wrong with being popular (and who said there was?), there's also nothing inherently wrong with being *un*popular. Sure, not every outcast is a misunderstood genius, or even simply a smart kid getting picked on for that reason and that reason alone. However, it's clear from the messages on this board that a good many of us "outcasts" do fit into one of those categories.
But other people have addressed those issues in response here. My own issue is slightly different.
A lot is said about the difference between "chat rooms" (and there is *so* much more to Net communication than what we call chat rooms) and the "real world". However, speaking as a chronic user of telnet talkers ("spod", as we say), I have to clear something up. The Net isn't simply a place to be "snide and cynical". It's where we make friends, have intelligent conversations, and get to know people on a mental rather than a physical level. It's been more useful to me in learning how to get along with people than my twelve years in public school were. I wasn't a Net person while I was an outcast -- I am now, and I have more friends than I did before.
There's a general privileging of face-to-face contact which is, quite frankly, undeserved. I use the Net to keep in contact with my friends from high school whose company I still value, and I also make new friends online. Some of these new friends have become some of my closer friends, although they live thousands of miles away. Saying "hey, how's it going" by a water cooler or chatting about current events with a group of acquaintances is not more *real* than having long, in-depth conversations about people's innermost thoughts and desires. It's not better than offering a virtual shoulder to cry on and a friendly ear. There are real people behind every one of the online names, talking by typing and communicating with a world of people that most people who stay in the "real world" will never meet.
It's not always like that, certainly -- there are idiots everywhere. (Oh, and the reason we feel superior sometimes to most of the people around us is that, in many ways, we *are* -- we're definitely on a different intelligence level. Most people aren't...that's why they're the average and we're not.) But it's only fair to see both sides and not to dismiss a whole culture as "pasty-faced, pudgy kids". That has to be one of the most insulting things I've ever read, btw. I'd expect that almost anywhere except a forum like this.
Not all teachers are competent. Certainly not all of them (or even most of them, really, despite my own experiences) are *in*competent, but some fit the description fairly well. I cite the instance of my sixth-grade teacher who called a conference with my father about my "learning disability". She said I didn't know how to read, that I was pretending. This after I'd been in the gifted program since first grade, checked more than 10 books out of the school library every week until they changed the policy (to only allow 3 books per week), and been permitted to take reading classes a year ahead of my grade level since third grade. Oh, and my first-grade teacher never taught me to read. My father did, well before the age of 6. So yes, he did know "the first thing" about it, and I still read more and faster than most people my age...or twice my age, for that matter.
I've had good teachers, I've had bad ones, I've even had *great* ones. Few of those, but that's the breaks. I understand others have had better and worse experiences than I have. I'm just mentioning my experience to show that parents *can* teach their kids to read -- and they *should*, as far as I'm concerned. 6 years old is too late to start learning. (Oh, and the best teacher I ever had was my father; raw intelligence and patience count for more than a degree does. The best teachers have both of those as well as their degrees.)
When I have children -- I expect to, someday, not soon, but someday -- I intend to do with them what my father (and mother) did with me. I'll use his methods, which were remarkably simple and didn't include "teaching phonics" as such. There is no one right way to teach children to read -- whatever works well is right, and his way worked for me. I hope it works as well with my children.