|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 21 2017 07:09 doomdonker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
My sense is that in some of the humanities it's possible to slide by somehow, while in STEM things tend to be a little more metric driven with grades corresponding pretty well to future career performance. The example I go back to is this kid I knew who majored in music performance. He somehow graduated with honors, but his violin playing was pretty garbage (I played violin for 10+ years, so I felt reasonably qualified to make that judgement). I guess there's a reason he didn't go to Julliard or some other conservatory, though.
This is fully acknowledging that there is certainly plenty of coursework in the humanities which is really fucking rigorous, especially to someone with minimal training in social science writing and research. In secondary school, that's definitely not really true. You can grind through the sciences through pure ROTE learning and paying for a whole book of practice questions. Eventually, you'll see a question you've seen before and you can spit it out verbatim. I got over 40 in specialist mathematics (top 9% in the state) but I couldn't do shit in university Calculus 201 for that reason. I didn't actually learn how to learn until university and I'm still pretty terrible at mathematics, despite being an engineer by trade. In fact, some of the schools obsessed with metric results will do exactly that and it completely hampers the future development of all students who teach by this method. They rush through the curriculum, because secondary school can seem extremely slow, and spend the second half of the year feeding practice exams to students. I think this is mostly a Commonwealth nation thing however.
That is a problem when the incentives are set up wrong. If school performance is examined based upon students test results (or improvements) in a standardized test, and peoples careers and pay are based on their schools performance, they will gravitate towards trying to maximize test results as opposed to trying to maximize their students learning.
It is, however, a lot easier to compare student performance in standardized tests when compared to student learning, which is kind of hard to investigate.
An additional problem is that since everyone has been to school, a lot of people think that they are experts in how learning works and how schools should work.
Add to that that learning isn't even a really well understood thing by people who professionally study it, and they institutional inertia of an education system, and you have a situation where it is really hard to actually determine what an education system should look like, really hard to do experimentation in this regard, and really hard to determine the results of those experiments.
|
Speaking of education, the other day I was shown some absurdly long Twitch (or maybe Youtube) ad about how current school curricula are "anti-boy" and that there's a "war on boys" (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4). I'd never heard of PragerU, but apparently it's built around 5-minute conservative pseudo-TED talks. I freely admit I skipped after like a minute when they said normal boys are treated like defective girls in school.
An interesting view into what analytics have decided constitutes a good ad for me, I guess?
|
On November 21 2017 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Speaking of education, the other day I was shown some absurdly long Twitch (or maybe Youtube) ad about how current school curricula are "anti-boy" and that there's a "war on boys" (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4). I'd never heard of PragerU, but apparently it's built around 5-minute conservative pseudo-TED talks. I freely admit I skipped after like a minute when they said normal boys are treated like defective girls in school. An interesting view into what analytics have decided constitutes a good ad for me, I guess?
Oh man you really should watch PragerU.... They are just the best of the best of trash.
They bring black people out to explain how the Southern Strategy is not really a thing and it is 100% a lie
|
On November 21 2017 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Speaking of education, the other day I was shown some absurdly long Twitch (or maybe Youtube) ad about how current school curricula are "anti-boy" and that there's a "war on boys" (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4). I'd never heard of PragerU, but apparently it's built around 5-minute conservative pseudo-TED talks. I freely admit I skipped after like a minute when they said normal boys are treated like defective girls in school. An interesting view into what analytics have decided constitutes a good ad for me, I guess?
You are asking the wrong question. What traits did you have that made PagerU want to target you? Because they paid to have those ads served to specific demographics. Conservatives have been leaning into the video game space since 2014. The idea that schools are against them and girls have an unfair advantage because they are girls has some allure for those who think beating Dark Souls is the most challenging task in human creation.
|
On November 21 2017 07:09 doomdonker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
My sense is that in some of the humanities it's possible to slide by somehow, while in STEM things tend to be a little more metric driven with grades corresponding pretty well to future career performance. The example I go back to is this kid I knew who majored in music performance. He somehow graduated with honors, but his violin playing was pretty garbage (I played violin for 10+ years, so I felt reasonably qualified to make that judgement). I guess there's a reason he didn't go to Julliard or some other conservatory, though.
This is fully acknowledging that there is certainly plenty of coursework in the humanities which is really fucking rigorous, especially to someone with minimal training in social science writing and research. In secondary school, that's definitely not really true. You can grind through the sciences through pure ROTE learning and paying for a whole book of practice questions. Eventually, you'll see a question you've seen before and you can spit it out verbatim. I got over 40 in specialist mathematics (top 9% in the state) but I couldn't do shit in university Calculus 201 for that reason. I didn't actually learn how to learn until university and I'm still pretty terrible at mathematics, despite being an engineer by trade. In fact, some of the schools obsessed with metric results will do exactly that and it completely hampers the future development of all students who teach by this method. They rush through the curriculum, because secondary school can seem extremely slow, and spend the second half of the year feeding practice exams to students. I think this is mostly a Commonwealth nation thing however.
I was referring to higher ed/ undergrad. My mistake if that wasn't clear.
Oddly, my high school experience was kinda the opposite. I took every single STEM AP class at my school, and there was a ton of memorization but most of it was problem solving, (a lot of designing an experiment to validate a hypothesis). For the humanities there were some classes where it was much more memorization based (APUSH and Art History were the big examples), though there were a couple like World History or English Lit where there was a big writing and/or critical thinking component. I also was lucky and went to a pretty kickass high school, and I'd rate most of my teachers there over most of my college professors.
|
On November 21 2017 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Speaking of education, the other day I was shown some absurdly long Twitch (or maybe Youtube) ad about how current school curricula are "anti-boy" and that there's a "war on boys" (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4). I'd never heard of PragerU, but apparently it's built around 5-minute conservative pseudo-TED talks. I freely admit I skipped after like a minute when they said normal boys are treated like defective girls in school. An interesting view into what analytics have decided constitutes a good ad for me, I guess?
Anecodtal, but with what I had to go through I can't help but at least give the idea consideration. Maybe "war on boys" and "defective girls" is harsh language for the situation though.
|
On November 21 2017 07:40 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Speaking of education, the other day I was shown some absurdly long Twitch (or maybe Youtube) ad about how current school curricula are "anti-boy" and that there's a "war on boys" (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4). I'd never heard of PragerU, but apparently it's built around 5-minute conservative pseudo-TED talks. I freely admit I skipped after like a minute when they said normal boys are treated like defective girls in school. An interesting view into what analytics have decided constitutes a good ad for me, I guess? Anecodtal, but with what I had to go through I can't help but at least give the idea consideration. Maybe "war on boys" and "defective girls" is harsh language for the situation though.
What did you have to go through?
|
On November 21 2017 07:41 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 07:40 Gahlo wrote:On November 21 2017 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Speaking of education, the other day I was shown some absurdly long Twitch (or maybe Youtube) ad about how current school curricula are "anti-boy" and that there's a "war on boys" (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4). I'd never heard of PragerU, but apparently it's built around 5-minute conservative pseudo-TED talks. I freely admit I skipped after like a minute when they said normal boys are treated like defective girls in school. An interesting view into what analytics have decided constitutes a good ad for me, I guess? Anecodtal, but with what I had to go through I can't help but at least give the idea consideration. Maybe "war on boys" and "defective girls" is harsh language for the situation though. What did you have to go through?
School district tried to shuffle me too and from multiple elementary schools because I supposedly had ADHD or some shit. Other stuff is more personal than I'm willing to share.
|
On November 21 2017 07:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 07:09 doomdonker wrote:On November 21 2017 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
My sense is that in some of the humanities it's possible to slide by somehow, while in STEM things tend to be a little more metric driven with grades corresponding pretty well to future career performance. The example I go back to is this kid I knew who majored in music performance. He somehow graduated with honors, but his violin playing was pretty garbage (I played violin for 10+ years, so I felt reasonably qualified to make that judgement). I guess there's a reason he didn't go to Julliard or some other conservatory, though.
This is fully acknowledging that there is certainly plenty of coursework in the humanities which is really fucking rigorous, especially to someone with minimal training in social science writing and research. In secondary school, that's definitely not really true. You can grind through the sciences through pure ROTE learning and paying for a whole book of practice questions. Eventually, you'll see a question you've seen before and you can spit it out verbatim. I got over 40 in specialist mathematics (top 9% in the state) but I couldn't do shit in university Calculus 201 for that reason. I didn't actually learn how to learn until university and I'm still pretty terrible at mathematics, despite being an engineer by trade. In fact, some of the schools obsessed with metric results will do exactly that and it completely hampers the future development of all students who teach by this method. They rush through the curriculum, because secondary school can seem extremely slow, and spend the second half of the year feeding practice exams to students. I think this is mostly a Commonwealth nation thing however. I was referring to higher ed/ undergrad. My mistake if that wasn't clear. Oddly, my high school experience was kinda the opposite. I took every single STEM AP class at my school, and there was a ton of memorization but most of it was problem solving, (a lot of designing an experiment to validate a hypothesis). For the humanities there were some classes where it was much more memorization based (APUSH and Art History were the big examples), though there were a couple like World History or English Lit where there was a big writing and/or critical thinking component. I also was lucky and went to a pretty kickass high school, and I'd rate most of my teachers there over most of my college professors.
I think the idea is not that there is no problem solving being done in maths in school, but that usually the amount of problems that are possible to solve with the knowledge that the students currently have is so limited that you can often brute force especially standardized tests by just memorizing shitloads of questions, answers, standard procedures, random facts, etc.... (And thus skip the one thing that the teacher actually wants to teach you by doing a lot of easy but boring work)
You can also be successful by learning the problem solving techniques and basic ideas that are taught in the maths class. In your example, you can either design an experiment to validate the hypothesis, or just know all of the experiments which are usually covered in your school classes and write down the correct one.
This is something that i have always found weird. I was always rather good at understanding maths, and thus i got the interesting experience without the boring memorization. But a lot of the students i tutor have no interest in trying to understand the more abstract concepts, usually because they have a self-image with involves not being good at maths based on previous experiences.
They want maths to be turned into a memorization class, and are willing to do way more work just to avoid having to gain a deeper understanding. I have the hypothesis that this is based on something going wrong in their earlier educational lives which makes them have a completely different understanding of how math classes work compared to mine, and seeing maths as something that you just need to do. They are willing to put in a lot of effort, but they have a deeply ingrained view of maths being just "Memorize how to solve problem type A1. Memorize how to solve problem type A2...."
I have no idea how to change this view. It is so sad because it turns a beautiful and enjoyable thing into an awful chore you just have to get done with so nobody gets angry at you for failing maths.
|
On November 21 2017 07:40 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 07:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Speaking of education, the other day I was shown some absurdly long Twitch (or maybe Youtube) ad about how current school curricula are "anti-boy" and that there's a "war on boys" (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4). I'd never heard of PragerU, but apparently it's built around 5-minute conservative pseudo-TED talks. I freely admit I skipped after like a minute when they said normal boys are treated like defective girls in school. An interesting view into what analytics have decided constitutes a good ad for me, I guess? Anecodtal, but with what I had to go through I can't help but at least give the idea consideration. Maybe "war on boys" and "defective girls" is harsh language for the situation though.
To the extent that wild labels should prompt reactive disbelief, sure, an actual "war on boys" isn't useful to start out looking why they do worse in elementary and secondary education. When you look at the topics in isolation, like overprescription of ADHD drugs, or reactions to typical young male behavior like engaging in mock fights and finger pistols, or recess time alotted, or reading books shown, I think you can make the case that there's a lot of harm being done. Especially in today's era where everybody has heightened awareness of little things having big effects.
|
I've heard it described as being part of flawed/overzealous SJW culture. Boys and girls are held to the same standards in high school. So when boys (who are naturally more rowdy/aggressive) display traits that are natural to them, they're quickly labeled as having ADHD because clearly there must be something wrong with them, right?
|
the overuse of adhd labelling started quite awhile before the so-called SJW stuff was kicking in; they're not really related iirc.
|
On November 21 2017 08:55 zlefin wrote:
the overuse of adhd labelling started quite awhile before the so-called SJW stuff was kicking in; they're not really related iirc.
It's all connected mate. People were being SJW-esque before the term was commonly used. Its certainly not exclusively the problem in overzealous ADHD diagnoses, of course, but it makes sense as being part of the lead-up to the fervent SJW culture that exists today in schools. Although I think that culture is on the decline now - I can't imagine Trump getting elected without that being the case lol.
|
|
|
On November 21 2017 06:41 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 06:16 xDaunt wrote:
To be fair, I'd rather have kids learn about personal finance than repeatedly fail algebra and geometry. So no, I'm not just unfairly shitting on the arts. But let's get real. It is far more likely that a given student is going to learn marketable skills -- particularly very valuable ones -- in STEM classes than in arts classes. Probably the case, though it should be noted that in terms of higher education the only area that has declined more than the humanities has been the sciences. Despite this, I don't think education should be for the sake of learning the most marketable skills.
I don't think there's much of a dichotomy as there is often made out to be here. The general skills needed to be successful career-wise (even in technical fields) are fairly universal (critical thinking, effective communication, curiosity, ability to learn new things, etc.) and I'm guessing are probably not too far from what you think an education should provide a person. I think the world would be better off having twice as many quality thinkers than it would be having twice as many STEM degree holders.
That said, I've never been convinced that liberal arts programs do a better job of teaching someone to think than STEM fields do. Furthermore, even if you're a quality thinker and liberal arts has led you that point in a way STEM couldn't, it's hard to convincingly demonstrate that you are indeed a quality thinker in an interview process (interviewing and hiring is hard), and the negative life impacts of a prolonged period of unemployment / underemployment at the start of one's career very well might outweigh even the non-monetary benefits of being a quality thinker (and may even limit their growth as a thinker, eliminating the value of the liberal arts education in the first place).
|
On November 21 2017 08:59 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 08:55 zlefin wrote:
the overuse of adhd labelling started quite awhile before the so-called SJW stuff was kicking in; they're not really related iirc. It's all connected mate. People were being SJW-esque before the term was commonly used. Its certainly not exclusively the problem in overzealous ADHD diagnoses, of course, but it makes sense as being part of the lead-up to the fervent SJW culture that exists today in schools. Although I think that culture is on the decline now - I can't imagine Trump getting elected without that being the case lol.
it's not a result of the sjw-style though. it's a moderately well studied phenomenon, and the causes lie elsewhere iirc.
there's no need to lump them together unnecessarily.
the entire world is connected, but that doesn't mean these two things go together in a useful way that helps the understanding of them in any way.
|
On November 21 2017 08:59 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 08:55 zlefin wrote:
the overuse of adhd labelling started quite awhile before the so-called SJW stuff was kicking in; they're not really related iirc. It's all connected mate. People were being SJW-esque before the term was commonly used. Its certainly not exclusively the problem in overzealous ADHD diagnoses, of course, but it makes sense as being part of the lead-up to the fervent SJW culture that exists today in schools. Although I think that culture is on the decline now - I can't imagine Trump getting elected without that being the case lol.
I don't think pharmaceutical companies are SJWs...
The rise of A.D.H.D. diagnoses and prescriptions for stimulants over the years coincided with a remarkably successful two-decade campaign by pharmaceutical companies to publicize the syndrome and promote the pills to doctors, educators and parents. With the children’s market booming, the industry is now employing similar marketing techniques as it focuses on adult A.D.H.D., which could become even more profitable.
Profits for the A.D.H.D. drug industry have soared. Sales of stimulant medication in 2012 were nearly $9 billion, more than five times the $1.7 billion a decade before, according to the data company IMS Health.
Behind that growth has been drug company marketing that has stretched the image of classic A.D.H.D. to include relatively normal behavior like carelessness and impatience, and has often overstated the pills’ benefits. Advertising on television and in popular magazines like People and Good Housekeeping has cast common childhood forgetfulness and poor grades as grounds for medication that, among other benefits, can result in “schoolwork that matches his intelligence” and ease family tension.
A 2002 ad for Adderall showed a mother playing with her son and saying, “Thanks for taking out the garbage.”
Sources of information that would seem neutral also delivered messages from the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors paid by drug companies have published research and delivered presentations that encourage physicians to make diagnoses more often that discredit growing concerns about overdiagnosis.
Source
|
I've heard a lot of theories, but the over diagnosing ADHD being the fault of SJW is a new one. They must have been crazy active in the mid 90s.
|
Charlie Rose only seems a few steps short of Spacey's on set harassment, but he also had 40+ years to work on those numbers. Given a few compilations of the weird shit he'd say on air on the morning show it really isn't surprising, since plenty of that could have been construed as harassment to his female cohosts.
|
On November 21 2017 09:20 Plansix wrote:
I've heard a lot of theories, but the over diagnosing ADHD being the fault of SJW is a new one. They must have been crazy active in the mid 90s.
SJW is practically no different to soyboy or cuck these days. 99% of the time, I end up with a more negative opinion of the person/poster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
