Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[i2amroy]

Warning: bit of a big reply here, sorry.

Imagine a hypothetical alien monster, who gets more value (utility) out of any resource than any human every could. By the logical of pure utilitarianism, maximizing gain to everyone, we should give all the resources to the monster.

I've already read that actually, and I don't see any problems. In order for our hypothetical utility monster to cause any significant changes on a large scale they would need to be more productive and more happy then a significant chunk of the human race. Once you factor in the fact that additional things that you already have tend to generate less happiness and the sheer difference in numbers required a utility monster can't exist on any meaningful scale. No matter how happy and productive a person is, they can't outweigh the entire human race. There are only so many hours in the day after all, and even if we look at things like amplifying the power of the human brain, etc. you still run into the simple difference in scale. Eventually you are going to hit a cap on the amount of productivity that a single person, even an amplified one, could create, at which point future resources would go towards a second amplified person, then a third, and so on.

Even if we assume that utility monsters could exist on larger scales, we run into three simple facts:
1) Part of being productive is being productive in the future, which means short of cloning you need at least a certain population size.
2) "Future productivity" requires safety or redundancy, to insure that it would suffer minimal losses in the event of an accident. This would also need to factor in genetic diversity into it's calculations, and would further limit population cuts.
3) "Future productivity" also requires the ability to adapt to future changes, and in general having multiple things is more flexible then having only one.
Once you factor those in, you can see that even with large-scale utility monsters we still couldn't kill more then a significant portion of the population, and the remaining 10% would be more productive then the entirety of human before.

Once again it's not a matter of "we can't do that", but rather the simple fact that people are averse to human death kicking in. As a similar example, lets say I have a bunch of land to farm. My goal is to maximize the amount of food that I can get out of that particular bunch of land. A single large collective will be more efficient, allowing for better land usage (since I don't have wasted space between plots), less wasted machinery (since one plow can be used for the whole thing, instead of each farmer needing their own plow since they don't share), more efficient water piping, and so on. The fact that we now only have one farm instead of dozens is irrelevant, since the amount of food is increased in both the short and long terms. (Of course if we wanted to fully carry the metaphor further we would want a small handful of farms, since the loss of efficiency at that point would be worth the increased protection from things like one particular company going bankrupt).

[Helgoland]

-SNIP-

*slow clap*
*clapping accelerates*
*frenetic clapping*
*standing ovation*
*for, like, fifteen minutes*
*also, I'm Shia LaBeauf*

Seriously, Vec hit the nail on the head. School is not primarily about gaining practical skills; it's about gaining the tools required to understand the world.

[Bauglir]

I know I said I was going to leave. I got angry. I'm making an exception.

I feel sorry for the financially and culturally disadvantaged kids under the proposed system change who would never have the chance to be introduced to diverse academic topics and even have a shot at research or well-paid jobs, most of which require the basic numeracy practiced in the "theoretical math" he's displeased with. The rich will keep tutoring their kids and gliding into Harvard. The poorer will be less screwed over by the system, perhaps, but lose access to their culture. I am working as a math tutor teaching 13-year-olds and college students basic arithmetic thanks to the point of view that all that math stuff is a waste of time out in the real world, so the kid can just have a calculator whenever they want one. Now they're finding out that when they need a basic number sense to do things out in the world, they're totally screwed and have to, I repeat, learn basic adding skills as a teenager or adult when it is much, MUCH harder. These are the rich kids from areas like Berkeley and Los Angeles who can afford private schools. There is a SERIOUS problem.

What we need to understand is that the elementary math education in the school is not actually about "mental math" per se. It is about gaining a sense of, and fluency with, numbers in general, which is evidenced by the ability to do quick mental arithmetic. This is a valuable skill. No, you do not actually need to be able to read to be a successful adult. It helps, though. Understanding how your number system works and getting a good grasp of basic algebra is also extremely helpful.


Frankly, this point of view makes me furious. If you want to argue that we should teach the things he mentioned in addition to everything deemed pointless, then I agree. People should have basic life skills. Around here, there is a one-semester required course that covers the basics of all of the topics he wanted, without needing to scrimp on basic math, science, and culture. Health is taught as part of the physical education curriculum. We learn about the legal system in history class. I learned how to file a tax return as a fifth grader in math class. I learned to balance a budget in sixth grade as, again, part of math class. We learned about how to compound interest in... AGAIN, math class, for precalculus. Physics? Math class! The game theoretic ideas you use to run a business? It was math class. Engineering and design projects... one more time, math class. Complaining about mathematics being taught poorly is one thing, but saying "Okay, I haven't found a use for it, so we ought to get rid of it" is totally asinine and betrays a disturbing lack of thought on the matter.

There are natural positions for all of the knowledge he wishes he had, where they can add, rather than detract, from the learning as a useful application. Advocating the removal of theory in exclusive favor of application is idiotic.

Otherwise? It's an offensive continuation of the concept that offering children beauty and interesting things to think about (and tools to think about them) is categorically unnecessary. The bright and sensitive will continue to be fucked over and educated chiefly in the notion that their needs don't exist. It's important to realize that folks who really don't need or want the abstract knowledge exist as well, who can be better educated by making parts of the curriculum more concrete, but all I'm seeing here is a staggering lack of sensitivity or thought on his part.

This. So fucking much, this.

[SalmonGod]

Interesting.  I had mixed feelings about it.

Vector hit half my feelings about it on the head.

But on the other half, the schools I went to taught zero basic life skills, and it doesn't really make sense to me that they aren't given some priority.  This is one of the reasons I wondered why I wanted to know what others thoughts would be, without giving up any of my own, because it seems this experience is highly dependent on the area.

My math classes didn't work in practical applications as described at all.  My government and economic classes taught us the basics of how those things work in theory, but didn't do anything to tie that it in with reality.  I hit adulthood a goddamn ace at passing tests and writing papers, but feeling pretty damn stunted regarding basic life skills.  I still do somewhat.  And it does frustrate me.  I felt like an idiot when I moved into a job that was less glorified data entry center and more genuine business environment, and was stumped by basic terms like "invoice" and "tender".  And I've known plenty of other people who feel exactly the same way. 

And I totally agree with the guy regarding stuff like first aid and understanding common preventable health conditions.  There was none of that in my schools, either.  Stuff that is both objective and incredibly likely to be useful to a majority of people SHOULD be addressed in school, in my opinion.

And I have to contradict this point a bit...

Otherwise? It's an offensive continuation of the concept that offering children beauty and interesting things to think about (and tools to think about them) is categorically unnecessary.

I agree... except the presentation of ideas in school from my experience had nothing to do with beauty and interesting things to think about.  It was "know this so you can pass this test".

In conclusion, I guess this only caught my attention based on personal experience that plenty of people do not share.

[Vector]

Ah, I should clarify: Mine said basically zilch about beauty or enjoyment in the presentation either, but I made damn sure that I found some because, well, I needed it. I don't think I could have done that in an environment that was basically All The Boring Things About Adult Life When You Are Too Itty-Bitty To Care Or Even Vaguely Comprehend. Hell... when I was in sixth grade and "making an adult budget," I decided I was going to grow up and be a baker...

[Frumple]

... yeah, I mean. You can teach resource allocation and conservation at that age, but you have to be sneaky about it. Making an adult budget isn't the way to do it -- stuff like Oregon Trail was/is. You can trick kids at a pretty young age into being relatively canny about using what's available to 'em, you just have to do it right and then handle getting them to the point of applying the concepts and methodologies (unintentionally) learned to other subjects.

Hell, baker would be a good thing to work with. Kid wants to cook, teach 'em to cook, and surreptitiously lean on the resource management aspect in the process. Stuff like that's good mojo, segues nicely into more mundane stuff. Wanna' teach mathy-stuff, can do that too. Someone has to have made tessellated cake at some point.

... in retrospect, I probably would have been considerably more likely to rekindle my interest in math if it had been edible.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, elementary school kids definitely shouldn't be bothered with that.  But people start realizing reality's about to slap them in the face somewhere in high school.  I was seeing lots of other students losing interest because they didn't understand the relevance what they were being taught, teachers wouldn't put any effort into trying to provide any, and they felt like they weren't being provided anything that was preparing them for adulthood.  The couple times I saw students ask teachers about this directly, all they got was scolded for being disruptive.

[Truean]

About this dude's little video:

My shitty high school thought I was literally retarded and I'd never pass algebra I. I got something out of it by taking every math class they offered, and blowing them away. This dude is trying for and getting attention for curriculum reform, judging by views on that thing.

He's forgetting the other end to his implied equation:

"If you can't explain why a subject is applicable to most people's lives, that subject should not be mandatory."

So explain why it's applicable, and teach applicable things while also teaching things that may be conditionally applicable.

Some of the shit he said is right out:

1.) Dissecting the Frog, dude, that's biology, that's your owner's manual, and short of dissecting a person.... That's it. Throw in a seminar on infectious diseases and explain some stuff.

2.) What Medicines to take: NO. We need better health care from qualified doctors not every moron running around acting as if they're a doctor. We need more affordable medical schools and that means society forking over the money for the doctors, not to say "take this for a cold or headache." Yes, again, basic stuff, but nothing like this. Same idea

3.) The Law. Hahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha. Excuse me one moment. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. NO! Flat out fucking not a chance in hell would this not be screwed up. Same deal as with the second point above. I have too many "sidewalk attorneys" who are unlicensed and completely fucking stupid running around and hurting people. Even when they aren't spouting utter nonsense like the old gold tassels on a flag puts you under admiralty law bullshit, they're spouting reasonable sounding but dangerous as hell BAD advice that has gotten people in jail. We need a better legal profession just like we need a better medical profession and society needs to fund both, for everybody, instead of just the rich.

Same deal with those morons over at Legalzoom. I love those fuckers because I literally double the bill payable upfront to fix the mistakes people make using that shit. If you're dumb enough to think you can do it yourself, I'm happy to charge a shitload. I mean an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure, so I actually have to undo the mistake (if possible) and THEN do what should've been done the first time.

Now, you could have a local lawyer agree to hold a seminar, THAT might work. Otherwise, good luck, because this subject absolutely has been and will be botched. Then somebody is going to try to game the system based upon that misinformation and they're screwed. Same deal with the doctor I suppose.

4.) Math not being needed. So what if you have a calculator in your pocket always. Allow me to show you the most relevant law in the universe, "shit happens." You will come into areas that will not have your phone or other calculation machines. I have tried to order fast food when the power was out and that little automatic change machine didn't work.... They had no idea what to do. I tried to explain. They looked at me like I was nuts.

Some of the stuff he said has some merit but needs tweaking:

A,) History, a la Henry the 8th. See, the problem there is that guy wasn't taught why this was SO incredibly important. It teaches about abuse of power, which is incredibly relevant today.... It teaches that worshiping people in power and putting them on pedastools is dangerous as hell, because these people will fuck over their own family (in Henry VIII's case kill them), for stupid shit. Also relevant, because we enshrine "job creators" today and all the other rich people with more money and deprivation than brains. The lesson of Henry VIII is one of power and wealth gone mad.... How ever so relevant today..... After all, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

That said, bad history lesson is worse than no history lesson at all. I'm looking at you History Channel....[glare]

B.) The political process, true but touchy. People don't like "indoctrination" which is admittedly a risk one way or the other with this. That said, there's a void left here, because how else do you learn about it.

That said, most civics classes I've seen, heard about, etc, have been atrocious. They have no idea what anything does except the absolute bare bones theoretical basis of government. They don't mention administrative policy making and HOW HUGE that is with agencies. You care about the environment? There's an EPA for that and they consider policy changes and YOU, yes YOU, can actually make a difference because they actually are required by law to take public comment on things. That's right, and they advertise this and everything but you don't know about it. Same thing goes with most admin agencies. Dept of labor, education, etc.

Nobody knows shit about admin agencies and yet they could have a voice in policy making that effectively has the force of law. This all falls under that "executive branch" which is explained in civics class as "they enforce the laws." No. Not that simple, at all.

Some of the stuff he says is dead right:

A.) Taxes and basic finance. Yup. Show the kids the 3 levels. Many high school students don't know crap about this; it's sad. They have no idea what a county auditor is or what a county recorder or commissioner does. They can barely fill out a tax return and much less do it right. Same idea for balancing a checkbook. Would anybody be against this? Same goes with mortgages etc.

B.) Being taught how to get a job. Yes, very yes. More importantly how to become a person people "should" want to hire. O yes, very yes.

______________________________________________

That said, generally society doesn't teach a lot of things needed to survive today. That includes teaching Shakespeare, not as art, but as lessons. Othello doesn't matter today because of the war between Venice and the Ottomans, but it should teach the dangers of suspicion and distrust and manipulation. The same goes for all of those works because there's a story behind them that has made them timeless.

They also need to teach economy in writing and meaning more while saying less. They need to teach logic etc.

The problem: it's a huge issue; there's no money to deal with it; people don't REALLY care; and finally, its hard just teaching one kid, much less a classroom any of the stuff I teach.

Education is screwy in the US. if it were simple to fix, then we would've. Hell, colleges usually do a piss poor job these days.

[alway]

He sounds like a typical university moron who was spoonfed everything he ever wanted by his parents, then went off on his own without knowing what curiosity meant or that google was a thing that existed. Who then finishes university and complains about how he didn't learn anything while having a facebook background portraying him at a frat party. Real world help-vampires is what they are.

[Putnam]

Real world help-vampires

That's a keeper.

[Bauglir]

Otherwise? It's an offensive continuation of the concept that offering children beauty and interesting things to think about (and tools to think about them) is categorically unnecessary.

Y'messed up yer quotes there, friend.

But, to elaborate on what I think, I guess - he's correctly identified a major problem, but his solution goes in exactly the opposite direction of what would actually help. Looking at school as the place you learn facts about how to live your life, and so every lesson needs to be justified by how applicable it will be to the average life, is (at least the way I see it) a matter of trundling ever further along the path of the soulless, bubble-sheet non-education. There's two reasons for this - we live in a world with the Internet, and the eternal problem with "today's" youth (whenever it happens to be) is that their motivations aren't those of the purely rational information accumulators education policy expects them to be.

I mean, look. You don't want to say to a student who asks, "When am I going to actually use the idea of natural selection in the real world?" with "Well, if you're ever doing an experiment with bacterial growth..." And if that same student asks, "When am I going to actually use Romeo and Juliet in the real world?", I hope your first impulse isn't to try and find a plausible real-world scenario where you can solve a problem with knowledge of the plot. Practical problem solving is great, but it can't be the sole motivational goal of public education - a ton of it is cultural exposure to things you're expected to know as a functional human being, a lot is exposure to the basics of a bunch of different areas so you can get some idea of what excites you, and there's a whole lot more to boot that's just there to train you to think in certain ways that are useful in a variety of situations but that don't involve any of the specific skills the class taught you. Lots of classes check more than one box, honestly.

If we're restructuring the educational system, don't eviscerate it for the sake of an obscene ideal. Now, a lot of the things he's talking about are things that we don't fucking know as a species, a lot are others that our best guesses at require years of dedicated study to get a decent handle on, so actually teaching them in public education is not going to be on the table. Sorry, that's just the world we live in. So teach kids how to use libraries. And Google. Jesus, teach them how to use Google. And other basic computer or Internet skills, like basic skepticism. Don't just pile on ever-more expectations for kids to make room for this - make deep cuts into the math and science (and English and art and foreign language...) courses that are mandatory, but dramatically expand their elective choices after grade school so that all these things are still available, make their first year of middle school a series of Survey Of classes that jump around between subjects every couple of weeks to provide the barest taste (to inform their elective choices), and for the love of every fucking God, do not establish predefined course tracks that need to be completed for any to count. If you want to take Spanish one year and switch on over to German, go right the fuck ahead. Let them experiment - because in order to get them motivated, which is what you absolutely need, they need to be able to make choices without being arbitrarily punished.

Now, Bauglir, you might be asking - wouldn't this result in inconsistent class sizes and enormous course catalogue bloating? Yes. Yes, it would. It will be expensive. Effective education is probably also the best possible investment we can make as a nation, so y'know. Won't somebody think of the children, and all that.

[Angle]

I'll agree that our education system needs some serious reform, but I have no idea how to go about it just yet. It's worth discussing, though. In particular, it sounds like you went to a pretty good school, Vector. Most of the stuff I learned about practical applications for math, I learned outside of school.

[Baffler]

I'll agree that our education system needs some serious reform, but I have no idea how to go about it just yet. It's worth discussing, though. In particular, it sounds like you went to a pretty good school, Vector. Most of the stuff I learned about practical applications for math, I learned outside of school.

My school pretty screwed up in this regard. We had a class called financial algebra, a friend of mine was placed there, and his homework was things along the lines of filling out a 1040-EZ, calculating compound interest, tax brackets, and figuring mortgages and installment payments. This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it was essentially an alternative to pre-calculus for kids who passed algebra II but did so with a D or C- or something. It was seen, then, as a remedial class, so only the kids forced into it ever took it. That was the only personal finance type course in the catalog, except for an elective course that was offered only one semester (because nobody took it) that mostly dealt with comparison shopping and another that focused on job interview skills.

[i2amroy]

As a person with two teachers as parents I have a fair bit to say about education reform, but I'll try to hold myself back. I do have a few good starting points I'll bring up here though.

• Put music into the same category as mandatory reading, writing, and arithmetic categories (which the founding fathers almost did). My dad has a 2-inch thick binder of studies, articles, and other things that all show that being a musician increases test scores across the board as well as a variety of other things like reduces gang participation, leads to higher wage post-school jobs, and a whole heck of other improvements.
• Separate the "smart" (which isn't the best word for them, I know) kids from the high achievers and the other parts. One of the biggest complaints of the whole "no child left behind" is that it essentially forces teachers to teach to the bottom of the classroom, and as a result there are tons of more intelligent kids that are failing, dropping out, etc. simply because they are forced to sit through basic things over and over again. Note that I separated "smart" from high achievers. The difference is that between the kids who get A's because they work their butts off to get them and the kids who walk in and ace exams despite not having ever studied a moment outside of class. High achievers can be given more to do and they'll often do it, though they may struggle. "Smart" kids need to be given more advanced things to do, because elsewise they degenerate the same way any other bored student will.
• More funding. My dad's engineering class got SolidWorks for their computers recently, but were totally unable to use it. You know why? Because they were running Windows XP on computers that had a grand total of 256MB RAM each. They literally had two 128MB sticks of RAM in each one. Up until last year my dad's office computer was still running Windows98. The school district issued my mom an old piece of crap laptop, and when the screen on it finally gave up rather then giving her a new computer (which you could literally get a better one then that piece of crap for like $50) they gave her a monitor to plug in to her piece of crap laptop. One of the big things in Arizona is the move to electronic standardized tests. My old high school and middle school had a grand total of 10 computers between them that passed the requirements, for something like 1000 students. Yet school budgets get pulled lower and lower every year, partly because people don't want to pay taxes for things that they don't benefit directly from.
• Similarly there is a big deal about "new teaching styles" and "flipped classrooms", but right now they just aren't feasible simply because many schools aren't getting the funding required to support the computer infrastructure they need to pull something like that off. Should funding rates increased, classrooms like that can be highly successful, but unless they do trying to force them just causes more harm than good.
• On the funding note we also need cheaper college with more government subsidies. Right now the student debt rates are the highest they've ever been across the nation, and rates are only continuing to go up. We also need high schools to start recognizing that some people are not going to succeed in college, and would be better off going to a trade school. Right now tons of high schools try to push everyone into 4 year universities, and that just means more people with debt they are never going to be able to pay off.
• And, as always, more critical thinking and less rote memorization is always good. Lots of state standardized tests force teachers to "teach to the test" right now, which is definitely not a good thing. Yes, the basics are important, but it's the why of why they are important that is the thing to learn, not the fact of it.

[Vector]

• Separate the "smart" (which isn't the best word for them, I know) kids from the high achievers and the other parts. One of the biggest complaints of the whole "no child left behind" is that it essentially forces teachers to teach to the bottom of the classroom, and as a result there are tons of more intelligent kids that are failing, dropping out, etc. simply because they are forced to sit through basic things over and over again. Note that I separated "smart" from high achievers. The difference is that between the kids who get A's because they work their butts off to get them and the kids who walk in and ace exams despite not having ever studied a moment outside of class. High achievers can be given more to do and they'll often do it, though they may struggle. "Smart" kids need to be given more advanced things to do, because elsewise they degenerate the same way any other
  

THIS. This is, like, my entire life. I missed so much school and caused so much goddamn trouble.