Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education > Colleges and Universities
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-03-2015, 11:01 AM
 
Location: NY/LA
4,663 posts, read 4,549,540 times
Reputation: 4140

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
I grew up in a culture like that, too, but I still struggled with algebra, in spite of working hard on it every night. I don't think the same person who does well in engineering will also do well with music performance or speaking a foreign language. Most people (allowing for a few exceptional individuals) will be better at one or two of those, out of three (not to mention other fields). There's definitely something to be said for starting kids out young with skill acquisition. Still, some kids who are raised bilingually go on to master other languages easily, some don't. And being exposed to music early doesn't mean you'll have a gift for it.

It would be interesting to do some studies on these questions. Does early ear training result in a facility for music? Does that mean that tone deafness could be eliminated with early ear training? Good questions.
The Suzuki method of music training emphasizes early exposure to music. The idea is that children can pick up music similar to how they pick up their native language. Children begin instruction as early as two years old, and the initial focus is on playing by ear rather than reading notation.

Suzuki method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-03-2015, 11:31 AM
 
28,671 posts, read 18,788,917 times
Reputation: 30979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zero View Post
The one caveat is that care must be taken to master each of the building blocks (algebra, trig, etc) before proceeding to the next level. If you start trying to take on the next level before you have an intuitive understanding of the prerequisites, it will get confusing quickly.
I'm going to make a point that this is where American education falls down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 09:03 AM
 
5,347 posts, read 7,199,924 times
Reputation: 7158
My older brother is an engineer and he said it's crazy how a class would go from like 45 people In the beginning to like 15 by the midterm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 10:52 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,211 posts, read 107,904,670 times
Reputation: 116159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zero View Post
The Suzuki method of music training emphasizes early exposure to music. The idea is that children can pick up music similar to how they pick up their native language. Children begin instruction as early as two years old, and the initial focus is on playing by ear rather than reading notation.

Suzuki method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I wish the Suzuki method had been around when I was a kid! My music teachers all complained that I played too much by ear, not by the notes! But your post doesn't answer the question re: whether early exposure to music and ear training can override tone deafness, and whether all kids respond to the method with the same level of progress. It would be good to do a study of Suzuki-trained kids, to see if they universally handle music more skillfully, or if some quit or lag behind others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 11:00 AM
 
1,834 posts, read 2,695,641 times
Reputation: 2675
Someone of reasonable intellect can eventually learn anything. But that is not the program. In these difficult majors a specific amount of work or learning must be accomplished in a limited amount of time. Many simply cannot learn that fast. So no they cannot do the program. Engineering is somewhat different from many fields. Those that do well with engineering in major projects are able to merge their basic engineering training with gifted creative interpretations that either contain or reduce cost or limit risk or yield totally new creations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 04:03 AM
 
Location: Stanford, CA
139 posts, read 250,711 times
Reputation: 339
Default You're not bad at math, you're just lazy.

Math skills come with hard work. It's not determined by some genetic predisposition. Stop making excuses and just say you don't want to learn it.

The myth of 'I'm bad at math'

There's no such thing as being good or bad at math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 04:14 AM
 
3,670 posts, read 7,163,903 times
Reputation: 4269
who is making excuses?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 05:36 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,538,911 times
Reputation: 24780
Ah...

Another one who labors under the misconception that everyone has unlimited potential. All they have to do is put out a little effort.

Cute.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 06:28 AM
 
Location: I am right here.
4,978 posts, read 5,769,366 times
Reputation: 15846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Ah...

Another one who labors under the misconception that everyone has unlimited potential. All they have to do is put out a little effort.

Cute.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 10:40 AM
 
4,059 posts, read 5,620,293 times
Reputation: 2892
Two points:

1) Math really isn't a homogeneous pool of knowledge, but a set of discrete skills. Someone can be great at calculus, but lousy at matrices, or vice versa.

Math is a language, more or less, so it's not that different from the possibility someone could be great at vocab (or creative writing) but lousy at grammar.

So I think some of why people struggle with math is that we take a very linear approach to instruction, some of which builds upon skills learned prior, but not entirely. They might be fantastic at a particular area in math, but they're unlikely to get there if they struggle with topics earlier in the curricular order.

2) In many cases I think people struggle significantly with "how" we teach. Math is often taught purely as rote memorization in the U.S. - that approach will work for some and not for others. Historically the small percent of the population that learned math did it in the context of solving problems, not the abstract labor of learning for the sake of unclear future application.

As a modern illustration from The Wire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1mmePD549o

I also recommend this related article from Wired (no relation): How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses | WIRED
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education > Colleges and Universities

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:41 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top