Those Inbred Finns Keep Getting Stupider

[gaelic cowboy]

That we are "catering to hopless students" and "ruining the bright ones" are among the biggest lies in the education system. I laugh every time I hear it, because I know for a fact that assigments are scaled according to the needs of advanced students. The people who spread this myth probably wasn't one of the bright students who got more difficult assignments, though their ego's make them believe that they're the next Einstein.

For some weird reason we have a major thing in the West where people act counter to there own interests.

I'm thinking of people on low incomes in America thinking the Tea Party is for them or students in Europe marching to protect highly paid civil servants.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There was also a lot of prejudice in what you just said HoreTore, at the end of the day there is probably some truth in what we are both saying, whether it is prejudiced or not. I mean, all bright kids think they are smarter than they are... really? All of them just want to finish the assignment without really pushing themselves?

That whole scale thing you came up with is completely artibtrary. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that every person has a level, after which they just can't take in any more advanced information. I know you are idealistic with these things, but reality has got to kick in. You can try every technique under the sun, but you just can't make a retard understand Shakespeare.

As for the example with your teacher, that seems to me simply proof that the current focus on traditional education is a waste of time for people like him. Don't hold him back in a classroom, let him do his own thing. Don't abandon him by any means, but by the time he has learned his reading/writing/arithmetic, is should be clear whether or not traditional schooling is for him.

As for the bias in exams... you can only attribute that to the failings of students so far. Again, it seems to me to just be proof of how out of touch traditional education is with the needs of most people.

You can talk about bias in exams or different teaching techniques, but at the end of the day these are all particular matters and dont' address the fundemanetal problem, which for me is the fact that 90% of what I learned beyond the age of 14 was a waste of my time and taxpayers' money.

[HoreTore]

The thing is, Rhy, that there is absolutely no way of knowing where our students will be in the future, we have no way of knowing their true potential. We can only assess the current situation, and as such we can't have any other focus than to try to make them take the next step, and try teaching it a different way if needed.



By the way, a question for you: would you think that an average 9-year old would be able to learn nevrobiology at a level where they could hold lectures about the subject?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The thing is, Rhy, that there is absolutely no way of knowing where our students will be in the future, we have no way of knowing their true potential. We can only assess the current situation, and as such we can't have any other focus than to try to make them take the next step, and try teaching it a different way if needed.

We can't know their true potential, we can just guess, its the same way with most things in life. Instead of trying 1,000 different techniques in the classroom, why not just give some kids an alternative that will give them more direct skills and give them a future with employment, instead of going to ridiculous lengths to pursue higher education?

By the way, a question for you: would you think that an average 9-year old would be able to learn nevrobiology at a level where they could hold lectures about the subject?

I have no idea what nevrobiology is, although I can guess that an average 9-year old doesn't need to know anything about it. Keep things practical.

[HoreTore]

We can't know their true potential, we can just guess, its the same way with most things in life. Instead of trying 1,000 different techniques in the classroom, why not just give some kids an alternative that will give them more direct skills and give them a future with employment, instead of going to ridiculous lengths to pursue higher education?

Do you think it's exhausting to employ "1000 different techniques" in the classroom? Bah, it's easy, challenging and, above all, what we teachers see as "fun"

But I'm not talking about higher education. Being a mechanic or plumber requires a wealth of education as well(though in this case, most people call it "learning").

I have no idea what nevrobiology is, although I can guess that an average 9-year old doesn't need to know anything about it. Keep things practical.

I am.

Sugata Mitra shows how a bunch of random kids in some Indian backwater learns enough about neurobiology to pass the exam needed to teach others about the subject:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Do you think it's exhausting to employ "1000 different techniques" in the classroom? Bah, it's easy, challenging and, above all, what we teachers see as "fun"

But I'm not talking about higher education. Being a mechanic or plumber requires a wealth of education as well(though in this case, most people call it "learning").

I'm sorry but your idealism is just leading to you talking nonsense. No teacher has the time or resources to try 1,000 different techniques just so they can exhaust every possible avenue for teaching every single student. In an ideal world you might be right, but its like with medicine, you don't spend thousands on a drug that will keep a cancer patient alive for an extra day, since lots of people will die of other stuff. You can't spend all your time on one pupil at the expense of the rest.

I am.

Sugata Mitra shows how a bunch of random kids in some Indian backwater learns enough about neurobiology to pass the exam needed to teach others about the subject:

Well if these kids are no pursuing a career related to neurobiology, thats great. That's an example of specialising early, they didn't have to know about the Great Gatsby or quadratic equations to do that.

[HoreTore]

I'm sorry but your idealism is just leading to you talking nonsense. No teacher has the time or resources to try 1,000 different techniques just so they can exhaust every possible avenue for teaching every single student.

We actually do, believe it or not

Well if these kids are no pursuing a career related to neurobiology, thats great. That's an example of specialising early, they didn't have to know about the Great Gatsby or quadratic equations to do that.

You missed the point....

His point was that any child can learn any subject, that being "dumb" is largely irrelevant to what one can learn.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We actually do, believe it or not

Then you must be some sort of super-human teaching demi-God.

You missed the point....

His point was that any child can learn any subject, that being "dumb" is largely irrelevant to what one can learn.

How do you know these kids were dumb? Are you implying they are dumb because they are from an "Indonesian backwater". OMG, you racist!

[HoreTore]

Then you must be some sort of super-human teaching demi-God.

Hardly! This happens at every school.

Won't get to everyone though. Someone will always slip through the net.

How do you know these kids were dumb? Are you implying they are dumb because they are from an "Indonesian backwater". OMG, you racist!

Indian backwater, Rhy... And no, that's far from it, fortunately... But they're a normal class from India, so the "intelligence mix" should be the same as at one of our schools, were there are students you refer to as "dumb", therefore some of those indians must also be "dumb"

There's a good example closer to home though. Last year, NRK showed a rather brilliant TV-show. They found 20 "dumb losers", put them in the same class and gave them some rather brilliant teachers. The result? In one year, their grades went from failing half and sucking at the rest to well above average. From being dumb and depressed, a new word had opened before their eyes.

It's possible.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hardly! This happens at every school.

Won't get to everyone though. Someone will always slip through the net.

It sure as heck didn't happen at any school I went to, and I don't see how the teachers possibly could have done what you are suggesting. When you have 30 kids in a class, you can't use different techniques for every kid that struggles.

There's a good example closer to home though. Last year, NRK showed a rather brilliant TV-show. They found 20 "dumb losers", put them in the same class and gave them some rather brilliant teachers. The result? In one year, their grades went from failing half and sucking at the rest to well above average. From being dumb and depressed, a new word had opened before their eyes.

It's possible.

So when they got teaching privileges and the best in the business, their results improved? Hardly surprising. Those teachers would most likely also be able to push the brighter students further than they would usually do.

Ultimately, your whole argument here seems to rest on the idea that all kids have the same potential for acheiving at school... it just doesn't seem realistic.

[HoreTore]

It sure as heck didn't happen at any school I went to, and I don't see how the teachers possibly could have done what you are suggesting. When you have 30 kids in a class, you can't use different techniques for every kid that struggles.

A challenge then! Come with me to work, and see for yourself

So when they got teaching privileges and the best in the business, their results improved? Hardly surprising. Those teachers would most likely also be able to push the brighter students further than they would usually do.

Ultimately, your whole argument here seems to rest on the idea that all kids have the same potential for acheiving at school... it just doesn't seem realistic.

I don't really see why it's not.

And I certainly can't see how we're supposed to sort those who can from those who can't. First of all it would require psychic ability, secondly any ethical teacher would resign.


But my argument isn't that a car mechanic needs to read Shakespeare(which is crap and nonsense at the same time). But being a car mechanic requires as much knowledge and education as I require to be a teacher. Education is a process that lasts until death no matter what you do in life. But we all have different interest; some enjoy creating things, some enjoy acting, some enjoy teaching, etc etc, and you learn what you like to do a lot easier than what doesn't interest you. But should specialization start earlier than we do now(age 15 here)? Don't know, I haven't really come up with any answer to that, but I'm not at all opposed to making the split earlier than we do now, as long as we're allowed to swap back and forth.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

WHAT?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Pray tell, just when does a human stop learning? I'll give you the answer: around the time of death.

or of election to public office.