July 13, 2007
What you need to un-learn from school...
This was a great post. Things you need to unlearn from going to school.
- I suspect the most dangerous habit of thought taught in schools is that even if you don't really understand something, you should parrot it back anyway. One of the most fundamental life skills is realizing when you are confused, and school actively destroys this ability - teaches students that they "understand" when they can successfully answer questions on an exam, which is very very very far from absorbing the knowledge and making it a part of you. Students learn the habit that eating consists of putting food into mouth; the exams can't test for chewing or swallowing, and so they starve.
Much of this problem may come from needing to take three 4-credit courses per quarter, with a textbook chapter plus homework to be done every week - the courses are timed for frantic memorization, it's not possible to deeply chew over and leisurely digest knowledge in the same period. College students aren't allowed to be confused; if they started saying, "Wait, do I really understand this? Maybe I'd better spend a few days looking up related papers, or consult another textbook," they'd fail all the courses they took that quarter. A month later they would understand the material far better and remember it much longer - but one month after finals is too late; it counts for nothing in the lunatic university utility function.
Many students who have gone through this process no longer even realize when something confuses them, or notice gaps in their understanding. They have been trained out of pausing to think.
Then there was this: physicists in some country were more likely to become extreme religious fanatics
- It may be dangerous to present people with a giant mass of authoritative knowledge, especially if it is actually true. It may damage their skepticism.
So what could you do? Teach students the history of physics, how each idea was replaced in turn by a new correct one? "Here's the old idea, here's the new idea, here's the experiment - the new idea wins!" Repeat this lesson ten times and what is the habit of thought learned? "New ideas always win; every new idea in physics turns out to be correct." You still haven't taught any critical thinking, because you only showed them history as seen with perfect hindsight. You've taught them the habit that distinguishing true ideas from false ones is perfectly clear-cut and straightforward, so if a shiny new idea has anything to recommend it, it's probably true.
Maybe it would be possible to teach the history of physics from a historically realistic point of view, without benefit of hindsight: show students the different alternatives that were considered historically plausible, re-enact the historical disagreements and debates.
Maybe you could avoid handing students knowledge on a silver platter: show students different versions of physics equations that looked plausible, and ask them to figure out which was the correct one, or invent experiments that would distinguish between alternatives. This wouldn't be as challenging as needing to notice anomalies without hints and invent alternatives from scratch, but it would be a vast improvement over memorizing a received authority.
Then, perhaps, you could teach the habit of thought: "The ideas of received authority are often imperfect but it takes a great effort to find a new idea that is better. Most possible changes are for the worse, even though every improvement is necessarily a change."
I thought about presenting the history of science in science classes but the author (Eliezer Yudkowsky's) counter point is well taken. Trick, how do you educate people really to take the unfinished nature of science seriously?
Posted by rakhier at 09:37 PM | Comments (0)
September 07, 2006
American Education vs. Thinking
Robert Samuelson writes in the Washington Post a essay in which he suggests there is a great deal more education going on than what simply meets the eye. His essay is worth reading here.
- If you're looking for the action in education, forget the Ivy League. Talk instead to Anthony Zeiss, president of Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte. It has six campuses and 70,000 students taking classes in everything from remedial English to computer networking. With about 12 million students, the nation's 1,200 community colleges help answer this riddle: Why do Americans do so badly on international educational comparisons and yet support an advanced economy?
At this back-to-school moment, the riddle is worth pondering. Those dismal comparisons aren't new. In 1970, tests of high school seniors in seven industrial countries found that Americans ranked last in math and science. Today's young Americans sometimes do well on these international tests, but U.S. rankings drop as students get older. Here's a 2003 study of 15-year-olds in 39 countries: In math, 23 countries did better; in science, 18. Or consider a 2003 study of adults 16 to 65 in six advanced nations: Americans ranked fifth in both literacy and math.
In trying to explain the riddle, let me offer a distinction between the U.S. school system and the American learning system .
The school system is what most people think of as "education." It consists of 125,000 elementary and high schools and 2,500 four-year colleges and universities. It has strengths (major research universities) and weaknesses -- notably, lax standards. One reason that U.S. students rank low globally is that many don't work hard. In 2002, 56 percent of high school sophomores did less than an hour of homework a night.
The American learning system is more complex. It's mostly post-high school and, aside from traditional colleges and universities, includes the following: community colleges; for-profit institutes and colleges; adult extension courses; online and computer-based courses; formal and informal job training; self-help books. To take a well-known example: The for-profit University of Phoenix started in 1976 to offer workers a chance to finish their college degrees. Now it has about 300,000 students (half taking online courses and half attending classes in 163 U.S. locations). The average starting age: 34.
The American learning system has, I think, two big virtues.
First, it provides second chances. It tries to teach people when they're motivated to learn -- which isn't always when they're in high school or starting college. People become motivated later for many reasons, including maturity, marriage, mortgages and crummy jobs. These people aren't shut out. They can mix work, school and training. A third of community college students are over 30. For those going to traditional colleges, there's huge flexibility to change and find a better fit. A fifth of those who start four-year colleges and get degrees finish at a different school, reports Clifford Adelman of the Education Department. Average completion time is five years; many take longer.
Second, it's job-oriented. Community colleges provide training for local firms and offer courses to satisfy market needs. Degrees in geographic information systems (the use of global positioning satellites) are new. There's been an explosion in master's degrees -- most of them work-oriented. From 1971 to 2004, MBAs are up 426 percent, public administration degrees, 262 percent, and health degrees, 743 percent. About a quarter of college graduates now get a master's. Many self-help books are for work -- say, "Excel for Dummies." There are about 150 million copies of the "For Dummies" series in print.
Up to a point, you can complain that this system is hugely wasteful. We're often teaching kids in college what they should have learned in high school -- and in graduate school what they might have learned in college. Some of the enthusiasm for more degrees is crass credentialism. Some trade schools prey cynically on students' hopes and spawn disappointment. But these legitimate objections miss the larger point: The American learning system accommodates people's ambitions and energies -- when they emerge -- and helps compensate for some of the defects of the school system.
In Charlotte, about 70 percent of the recent high school graduates at Central Piedmont Community College need remedial work in English or math. Zeiss thinks his college often succeeds where high schools fail. Why? High school graduates "go out in the world and see they have no skills," he says. "They're more motivated." The mixing of older and younger students also helps; the older students are more serious and focused.
This fragmented and mostly unplanned learning system is a messy mix of government programs and private business. In some ways it compares favorably to other countries' more controlled governmental systems. Of course, that isn't an excuse for not trying to improve our schools. We would certainly be better off if more students performed better. Nor should it inspire complacency. "Other countries are picking up these models of community colleges and online learning," says Chester E. Finn Jr. of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a research group.
But the American learning system partially explains how a society of certified dummies consistently outperforms the test scores. Workers and companies develop new skills as the economy evolves. The knowledge that is favored (specialized and geared to specific jobs) often doesn't show up on international comparisons that involve general reading and math skills. As early as the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans are addicted to practical, not abstract, knowledge. That's still true.
I would argue the following points
- The U.S. K-12 and College educational system is wildly variable. There are schools where the average student is super and they all do their homework and the juniors are seniors are disapointed if they get less than a 5 on the AP Tests. Then there are schools where very few students do the homework and most school time is spent keeping some semblance of order in the classroom.
At the college level there are huge differences between a college like Bennington and MIT.
They have such different goals, students, educational philosophy that they really don't even belong in the same category.So, huge disparities in the U.S. Educational system makes generalized statements about it nearly valueless.
- The primary goal of education is teach people how to think about problems using logic and reason. Imparting specific knowledge is a secondary (though important) goal, it is not primary. However, most standarized tests look for student mastery of information (i.e. what they have learned) and they do not seek to find out if the students know how to think.
The American educational system, despite its many weaknesses, does actually try to get the students to think. Other systems (like Japan) do not. Japanese students test well but the system does not promote thinking nor does it reward students who can think. In Europe, both France and Germany split children off into different tracks at a very early age (12-14). Nearly half of a child's compulsory education is spent on a track which either leads to a trade or to the elite general purpose colleges. This early split means that a large group of people who develop a mentally somewhat later, will find it very hard indeed to move into Ph.D. programs. I could list hundreds of famous scientists who started showing real promise only after age 17. By and large, the European model losses these people for good.
Posted by rakhier at 10:07 AM | Comments (0)
September 02, 2005
Helicopter Parents...
Nice article about Helicopter Parents that always seem to hover over their college student children. Lots of good comments in the comment section.
Main points: Parents are lot more involved in their children's lives after the age of 18. Colleges seem to have pathetic teachers and near-useless administrations.
Posted by rakhier at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)
August 10, 2005
VodkaPundit writes about 3 things you should write about in High School...
I liked this essay by Stephen Green of VodkaPundit.
- The best English teacher I ever had was David "Don't Call Me 'Dave'" Cantwell, my first semester at Mizzou. David was "merely" a Teaching Assistant, getting his Master's in part by teaching well-meaning freshmen how to write decent essays. One semester, one journal, five essays. Two of them even now don't make me sick to re-read – quite an accomplishment for a frosh who thought it sounded smart to use the word "rather" rather too often.
David's gone on to bigger and better things, like getting a book published. But his most important lesson has stayed with me, nearly 20 years later. First day of class, he told us, "Write about anything you want, as long as it isn't abortion, gun control, or evolution. You did all those to death in high school." ...
Abortion. I support a woman's right to choose, for whatever reason, right up until the natural viability of the fetus. That's a variable, but generally around the start of the third trimester. After that point, I am still pro-choice, but only if the mother's life or health is endangered. End of rant, end of debate. You will not change my mind, so don't even try.
Gun Control. "Gun control" means having the skill required to put steel on target. The Founders wanted an armed populous, and they got one. Cool. My position, naturally, extends to issues like must-issue laws for concealed weapons permits. End of rant, end of debate. You will not change my mind, so don't even try.
Evolution. Evolution is a fact – species change over time. The fossil record demonstrates this beyond debate. Evolutionary theories attempt to explain how the fact of evolution occurs. Like all theories, they are subject to scrutiny, falsification, and peer review. No "theory" requiring a god or invisible intelligence or burning sage or nineteen-teated mythical bear can be falsified – and is therefore not science. It also therefore has no place in a science class. End of rant, end of debate. You will not change my mind, so don't even try.
I agree with Mr. Green on all three points. Still, good idea to get the High School students to write about these issues. Likely to get them to actually express an opinion.
Posted by rakhier at 08:23 PM | Comments (0)
June 07, 2005
How English Classes Should be Named
This is a good comment on how English classes should actually be named. Its from the teaching blog of Mr. McNamar.
Department of Literary Analysis & Written Communication.
9th Grade: Introduction to the Craft of Writing
1 - Basic Written Grammar (we've shelved this for far too long)
2 - Structure of Writing
3 - Introduction to Literary Analysis: Summarize, Infer, Evaluate
4 - Introduction to Literary Writing
10th Grade: Understanding the Intellect of Language
1 - Intermediate Written Grammar
2 - Writing for Enjoyment: Develop the Creative Technique
3 - Intermediate Literary Analysis: Evaluate and Critique
4 - Intermediate Literary Writing
11th Grade: Developing Logic in Written Communication
1 - Developing the Style Within
2 - Advanced Literary Analysis: Connect and Respond
3 - Introduction to Logic
4 - Introduction to Argumentation
12th Grade: Writing For a Purpose
1 - Advanced Literary Analysis II: Transferring Literature to Life
2 - Writing To Persuade: The Skill of Persuasive Writing
3 - Writing to Inform: The Craft of Journalistic Writing
4 - Writing to be Known: The Art of Personal Writing
Posted by rakhier at 11:45 AM | Comments (0)
Teaching Blogs...
Ms. Jacobs writes about teaching at her blog and she has a good list of education blogs.
Posted by rakhier at 11:32 AM | Comments (0)
June 06, 2005
Harvard's new 50 million waste of time - to promote diversity
Ms. Mac Donald, writing in the City Journal, savages the idiotic new Harvard diversity initiative. Yes, Larry Summers has grandly committed 50 million dollars to "improve" Harvards policy of hiring women faculty. Ms. Mac Donald tears the diversity report to pieces, showing that whoever wrote the paper can't think clearly and won't address the heart of the issue: there is no pool of super-talented women PhDs in math, science and engineering. Just because Harvard wishes it were so, doesn't make it happen.
Here are four strategies the writers of the report used to conceal the total pointlessness of their work:
- STRATEGY #1: PRACTICE COLLECTIVE AMNESIA. So your latest diversity effort mimics everything that your institution has been doing for years? No problem! Just play Let’s Pretend: “Let’s pretend that we’ve never had a diversity initiative at our college and that this current proposal to hire more women and minority faculty represents a radical new take on college governance.”...
STRATEGY #2: CREATE NEW BUREAUCRACY. The only new hires that diversity initiatives generate are in college administrations, already overloaded with sinecures. The Harvard task force demands the creation of a most remarkable new position, a Senior Vice Provost for Diversity and Faculty Development....
STRATEGY #3: SUBDIVIDE ONE BIG ZERO INTO MANY LITTLE ZEROS. So what if a diversity bureaucrat’s job is a cipher? You can make that cipher look impressive by breaking it up into equally vacuous component parts. The task force creates 24 “specific responsibilities” for the Senior VP for D, proving that there are at least 24 ways to say “count the beans.”...
STRATEGY #4: RENAME EVERYTHING THAT YOUR UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN DOING REGARDING “DIVERSITY.” Diversocrats possess a primitive belief in the totemic power of words. If you can rename something, you have changed its essence. Harvard has already been obsessively compiling data on gender and race: the task force easily obtained faculty data from 1990 to 2005 by rank and gender—and within gender, by race.
Ms. Mac Donald's conclusion is priceless: "The aristocratic ease with which Harvard has just dumped $50 million down a bureaucratic sinkhole tells you all you need to know about why attending Harvard for eight months costs more than most families earn in a year. Eventually, students and parents may start asking why anyone would want to."
Read the whole thing. (Hat tip to Power Line)
Posted by rakhier at 09:25 PM | Comments (0)
Yes there is a cost to "acting white" in schools
A serious paper has appeared in which the authors argue, based on a large and detailed sample size (90,000 students in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health), that students in American schools react differently to other students based on their GPA.
In a nutshell: if you are white (European-American), the higher your GPA, the more friends you have. A simple, linear relationship.
If you are black (African-American) you get more friends the higher your GPA up to a point and that point is a B+ GPA. Beyond that point, the higher your GPA, the less friends you get.
If you are Hispanic (self-identified ethnic category), once you get more than a C+ GPA, you get less friends the higher your GPA gets. Sadly, for an Hispanic 4.0 student, they have the least friends of any other grouping within the Hispanic set of students.
This social cost to high GPA students goes away in schools which are not racially mixed, nor is it seen in private schools. Given this, are racially mixed schools beneficial to either African-American students or Hispanics?
The paper can be seen as weak on some fronts (why is same-race friends the key metric? - should you really judge quality of friends the way they do in this paper?) but it seems important to me.
This is the link to the paper (PDF)
Posted by rakhier at 09:12 PM | Comments (0)
March 29, 2005
A new super web site for looking at school data...
This new web site: School Matters is full of data about all the schools in the United States. You can see a lot of information here. Impressive.
Posted by rakhier at 04:54 PM | Comments (0)
March 10, 2005
Education Links - March 8 Edition
Here are some interesting links about education collected by EduWonk. He calls it The Carnival Of Education: Week 5.
Posted by rakhier at 12:14 AM | Comments (0)