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.
It doesn't throw the whole article in doubt, because that was the only personal anecdote. The rest of the article is philosophical ideas and reasoning. It is a fact that there are people at high levels in every field who struggle with the fundamentals in a different field.
It doesn't throw the whole article in doubt, because that was the only personal anecdote. The rest of the article is philosophical ideas and reasoning. It is a fact that there are people at high levels in every field who struggle with the fundamentals in a different field.
It would be foolish to not consider arguments that are based on reason due to the author's assertion that his medical doctor ex-wife had shaky math fundamentals. You are bordering on a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well." You cannot discredit everything else he says based on one personal anecdote that may or may not have only been slightly exaggerated in order to illustrate a point. You cannot then compare the author to someone else who has "made up so much stuff that nobody cares anymore." As far as you believe, Alfie has only "made up" one thing. The good thing about the rest of the article is that it is composed of ideas that you can check with your own brain and discuss with other people.
If I said "I don't drink soft drinks" but it turns out I drink one soft drink occasionally, and then I say "the sky is blue," are you not going to look and see if the sky is blue because my earlier statement was somewhat inaccurate? (Which we don't even know if it was at this point)
Which is exactly his point. Not everyone needs a high level of math. Most people will not use or remember the math they "learned" in high school. Just one example.
He is attempting to dumb down the level of education even further. It is a well known fact that maths develop logical thinking. On the other hand, some kids will simply not have an aptitude for it, and that's fine. They can go into other things, but they should still be required to take some maths because these develop sections of the brain that deal in logic and childhood is when the brain is developing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMT
Giving students a choice of what to read, while under guidance, is a great way to get them to want to read more.
That's already done in schools. Kids do have choices as to what to read. Perhaps not 100% of the reading material, but a good amount of it is choice. And in real life people do not have constant choices. Well, perhaps the rich have more choices than others, but that's beside the point. In life we do not have the luxury of choice. At work, for example, we do not have a choice to pick those work activities we prefer over those we do not, and if children are taught that they can always pick what they enjoy the most, they will be fooled into thinking that's the way life is, they will simply not be able to function as adults the moment life requires them to do things they are not particularly enjoying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMT
A school does not need to have extremely standardized curriculum for the students to learn and focus. There are many schools in this country and other countries where the students are not compelled to perform an exact list of orderly tasks. These children are not "texting or goofing off," they are learning and thinking and doing. Kids are more likely to goof off when they believe what they are doing is not relevant or enjoyable.
Learning discipline is part of living, of real life, of how everything functions in this universe. If school is turned into a free-for-all and doesn't teach any form of discipline, again, the kids will grow up unable to deal with and function within reality. Kids already have almost no requirements nowadays. When most of the U.S. was rural, kids were an integral part of hard work, and had to get up at the crack of dawn to work in extremely hard tasks I'm sure they would have preferred not to do. Nowadays kids do none of that, and the little required of them is often allowed to go undone. If school also turns into an all-fun enterprise, kids will be useless, helpless adults who won't know how to cope with what life is when it hits them in the face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMT
OK, I agree, however, better learning could be done during school hours. And it doesn't mean you only have to be cramming academics during the day. Students need to move around and be healthy and have rest during the day as well.
I agree that there needs to be more movement. There needs to be dance classes, and more different forms of physical education. Kids nowadays do very little movement. It's all computers, texting, games, TV, and not too much else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMT
I believe those traits can mostly be taught and nurtured, and school doesn't do a very good job of that right now. Half of those traits are squelched in our schools.
I’m not sure what you mean by saying that high reasoning ability, creativity, curiosity, a large vocabulary and an excellent memory can be mostly taught and nurtured. Doing math, memorizing poetry, having to figure out homework or what a reading assignment means on one’s own without constantly asking for help, all help develop the areas of the brain that these involve, and reading is vital to the development of vocabulary and language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMT
I agree, memory is important. But other things are just as important, yet are completely downplayed in our current model of education.
I suspect that excellent memory is hard to "acquire" if one is not born with it - that each of us (as with intelligence) are born with our own inherited memory. I do think we can exercise what we are endowed with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMT
Fine. But should these professors be able to determine exactly what every child learns in every classroom around the country, and enforce it by law?
I don’t know if “by law,” but certainly college professors would be more able to put together history books that reflect real history rather than the whitewashed bs that Christians have pushed for throughout all these years, and which make history books nothing but a dull series of dates with lies and whitewash instead of the fascinating, real explanations of the events in history.
In my casual or day-to-day definition, "well-educated" means having an expansive base of learned cultural knowledge (general, NOT specialized) and the verbal reasoning ability to understand complex abstract topics, as well as the expressive finesse to present this combination in writing or speech. Generally, if one is present, the others will be, although there are exceptions to this rule. It is not at all a measure of human dignity, and not everybody was created to be "well-educated" in this definition. Nor does it necessarily denote intelligence, though the two are connected.
I generally like Alfie, but I do doubt what he says about his ex-wife. You do not get through school and an Ivy League one at that without speaking properly or knowing your multiplication tables.
It is certainly true that many intelligent people do not have a lot of knowledge of subjects that are not part of their field, but most know the basics. They may not spell properly (especially if they have a learning disability). They may not do well in math (again especially if they have a learning disability), but you are not going to get through med school without basic math.
Unfortunately, this part of the article calls other things into question, imo.
I generally like Alfie, but I do doubt what he says about his ex-wife. You do not get through school and an Ivy League one at that without speaking properly or knowing your multiplication tables.
It is certainly true that many intelligent people do not have a lot of knowledge of subjects that are not part of their field, but most know the basics. They may not spell properly (especially if they have a learning disability). They may not do well in math (again especially if they have a learning disability), but you are not going to get through med school without basic math.
Unfortunately, this part of the article calls other things into question, imo.
Fine, I will email him then.
Alfie's ex-wife aside, I am gathering from many of your responses here that you believe multiplication tables and proper grammar to be a part of being well-educated. It's difficult to argue against that, nor do I necessarily want to, though I can think of people who are well-educated in other ways who may not have good grammar or arithmetic skills. Should we then suppose that all students be mandated to take grammar and arithmetic classes until the 12th grade? (Why or why not?)
I would love if it were somehow possible to form a consensus about the purpose of education.
Better yet, I want people to think about it.
Alfie's ex-wife aside, I am gathering from many of your responses here that you believe multiplication tables and proper grammar to be a part of being well-educated. It's difficult to argue against that, nor do I necessarily want to, though I can think of people who are well-educated in other ways who may not have good grammar or arithmetic skills. Should we then suppose that all students be mandated to take grammar and arithmetic classes until the 12th grade? (Why or why not?)
I would love if it were somehow possible to form a consensus about the purpose of education.
Better yet, I want people to think about it.
There is a difference yet a correlation between intelligence and being well educated. People with above average intelligence and the opportunity to be well educated have typically mastered arithmetic by 5th or 6th grade. They are well on their way to having proper grammar at this point but someone who is well educated is constantly put in positions where they are aware of the use of good grammar. Being well educated means you have had to do a considerable amount of writing that reinforces and requires the used of good grammar. I think their is a strong correlation between proper grammar and the level of education that a person has attained.
There is a difference yet a correlation between intelligence and being well educated. People with above average intelligence and the opportunity to be well educated have typically mastered arithmetic by 5th or 6th grade. They are well on their way to having proper grammar at this point but someone who is well educated is constantly put in positions where they are aware of the use of good grammar. Being well educated means you have had to do a considerable amount of writing that reinforces and requires the used of good grammar. I think their is a strong correlation between proper grammar and the level of education that a person has attained.
Agreed, though you made a simple grammar mistake here. How educated are you?
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.
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.
