7 ms·

The current system was created for a reason: because for most people, it works. I ran a language learning group for a couple of years and we tried many differe

The current system was created for a reason: because for most people, it works. I ran a language learning group for a couple of years and we tried many different styles of learning. With no structure, most people flounder. Unless you already learned the material and just need it for review, it really doesn't work well. The best was complete structure: tests, lesson plans, and homework. Most people are passive. They want a teacher to lead them and guide them through the learning process. No structure will work with people that have the same discipline required to start a company, because they don't need someone telling them what to do.

ausjke 11y ago
"most people are passive", that's probably true and why we have lessons for all subjects for the majority.
fao_ 11y ago
> With no structure, most people flounder. I find the opposite -- it is impossible for me to get any kind of complex learning done while I am on a structured course. It's telling that I learned more in three weeks of being ill and choosing to passively read books on mathematics (While coughing my guts up, of course), than I did actively participating in a course. (The only reason I am participating in the course is because I need a bit of paper that says I can do foo. A few people working in foo field have said I am at their level, it's just mindless inane hoop-jumping.) > Most people are passive. They want a teacher to lead them and guide them through the learning process. Exactly, but IMO that is the fault of the schooling system itself. They've never had to learn anything themselves, because everything they know has been spoon-fed to them by their teachers. If we had a better (Differently structured) education system, then this would not be necessary. Although I do not see much hope for this happening, both Russell and Whitehead made attempts to improve the learning systems in the UK, neither prevailed. Apologies if this came across as a rant.
- tanker 11y ago
  I too learn more deeply outside of the confines of a structured class. However, I find the structure of an OCW course nearly ideal for many subjects. For me it seems to be at least partially a function of my ability in an area. The stronger I am in a subject, the less structure I need. I suspect the optimal amount of structure varies from person to person and within a person from subject to subject. People learn differently.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  So they give their experiences with many, many students that they've taught over the years, and you say it's not true because you're different?
  - obsurveyor 11y ago
    The example used is flawed to begin with, in my opinion. Some kind of structure is almost required to learn a language in a reasonable amount of time, assuming there is no immediate access to full immersion 24/7.
  - fao_ 11y ago
    I have also had the experience with infomally teaching (read with a bias towards 'mentor') programming to people, along with the second hand experience of knowing numerous teachers, including my father. Along with this I was unschooled from the age of eleven, and I have seen the effects of this upon the children -- most notably with a child (Eleven years of age) teaching themselves to read to an adult level in roughly six months -> one year, simply because they were interested in a subject. My example was anecdotal, however when combined with my (Also anecdotal) experiences concerning the education system, the second-hand experiences I noted, and the writings of Russell, Whitehead, Lockheart, and numerous others who also have expounded on the problems with overly structured teaching and similar methods, it provides me with enough evidence to convince me until equal evidence is provided to the contrary. That is why I say it is not true -- or more accurately, that in my experience, it is not true. I accept that a structured environment is a requirement for some people to learn, but I dispute that it is a hard requirement, and I also dispute that it is natural for the general population to require structure to learn.
    - brazzledazzle 11y ago
      My anecdotal experience brought me to similar conclusions. Structure is required in schools because of the way children are taught in schools. And I'm not sure I'd do any different given the same requirements. Even though it doesn't have the best results for every child it scales well enough that most people at least do okay. Take your average child away from that after several years of being part of it and any short term observations are going to make you think structure is critical. Before they do anything else they're going to have to learn that they don't need structure to learn and after that they're going to have to learn how to teach and push themselves.
0xFFC 11y ago
>most people are passive They are not naturally. But society designed by people like you turned them to being passive. Imagine people start education from start in society like this university, everyone will be excited, because they are going to do what they like. My problem with people like you is this.you are scaling your small experience to one of the fundamental things in human kind. Maybe passiveness in your language learning group was other where? Maybe because people was forced to be there? Because of raise? Beacsue of earning respect? Or because of something deep in their unconscious part of their mind. But I am 100% sure if they were truly there, they would have been excited. Things are simple.if you compare them with sex.almost every bode (healthy) excited about sex. Education should be like this.free.and whenever whatever you like. Every person is/will be excited if he/she truely become free to do what they love.
- tmptmp 11y ago
  >>Imagine people start education from start in society like this university, everyone will be excited, because they are going to do what they like. Anybody and their grandmom may be excited to do what they like; it takes education to learn to do something even if you don't necessarily like it. What he/she seems to be saying by "structured-ness" may have to do with this. Nature forces you to hunt for food, else I am happy to just keep on pondering and doing philosophy because I like it.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  And how do you pay for it? How do you turn that into being able to support yourself and your family?
- crpatino 11y ago
  What happens when you find out that what most people think they "like" is to hang up with friends, drink beer, play games and have as much sex as you possibly can? What happens when said group of people finds out there's such horrible things as bankrupcy, or debt collection, or evictions? What happens when they figure out that the things everybody expects them to do to pull themselves out of the mess is complex stuff that cannot be learned on the fly, and that requires years of practice before results can be obtained by investing a reasonable amount of effort? It is good and proper to enjoy ourselves in life, but sometimes you need to force yourself to do stuff that either you must do right now in order to avoid extremely unpleasant outcomes, or that you should do in order to position yourself for more good things to come your way in the future.
rndmize 11y ago
> Most people are passive. They want a teacher to lead them and guide them through the learning process. Bull. Most people have any interest in learning beaten out of them by our crappy factory/prison like educational system. Because you know what's not conducive to learning? Having no choice as far as subjects; having no choice how long you spend on them; having no choice on who to learn from; having no choice who you learn with. PG has a classic essay on makers vs managers on scheduling, and he places emphasis on how for work like programming, getting into the material takes time. I see no reason this wouldn't apply to learning. How much work would most developers get done if they had their day broken into 50 minute segments, five minute transition times, and six different projects they were required to work on every day with equal consistency? My mother runs a Montessori preschool. Consistently, the kids that go off to first grade come back with stories of attending traditional school and wondering when they get to start doing something instead of sitting at their desk. Or when they can do something new instead of going through material they already know with the class. This is not to say Montessori is a perfect system - but it was actually designed with the education of children in mind, rather than efficiency from a bureaucratic perspective. It bothers me greatly when someone blames the nature of people for problems that are systemic in nature - it feels no different from the ridiculous number of ADHD diagnoses we have these days, which seems to largely stem from not giving kids space to be kids.
- jbhatab 11y ago
  I disagree. I think most people need structure. It may be from personal issues or life issues, but most people need that guidance.
  - copperx 11y ago
    Structure and motivation are needed to learn about subjects you are not passionate about. For those things that make your heart race faster, structure is a hindrance. However, to have real mastery of a subject (say, Computer Science), will require you to suffer through parts of the curriculum that don't seem interesting.
- tmptmp 11y ago
nostrebored 11y ago
I think you're mistaking socialization for some broader natural truth. My partner was unschooled, and her peers are on average doing much better than mine, having attended the best charter/magnet high school in my state.
entropicmind 11y ago
I agree with the necessity of structure at a younger age. The current public education system in America has strict schedules and classes geared towards getting the lowest common denominator a high school diploma. However in a college setting, which is supposed to prepare you for the real world, it's more of a sink or swim scenario that separates those who are disciplined and are willing to work than those who don't know how to thrive without someone telling them what to do at all times. I'm really interested to see how this new university works out.

ausjke 11y ago

"most people are passive", that's probably true and why we have lessons for all subjects for the majority.

fao_ 11y ago

> With no structure, most people flounder. I find the opposite -- it is impossible for me to get any kind of complex learning done while I am on a structured course. It's telling that I learned more in three weeks of being ill and choosing to passively read books on mathematics (While coughing my guts up, of course), than I did actively participating in a course. (The only reason I am participating in the course is because I need a bit of paper that says I can do foo. A few people working in foo field have said I am at their level, it's just mindless inane hoop-jumping.) > Most people are passive. They want a teacher to lead them and guide them through the learning process. Exactly, but IMO that is the fault of the schooling system itself. They've never had to learn anything themselves, because everything they know has been spoon-fed to them by their teachers. If we had a better (Differently structured) education system, then this would not be necessary. Although I do not see much hope for this happening, both Russell and Whitehead made attempts to improve the learning systems in the UK, neither prevailed. Apologies if this came across as a rant.

tanker 11y ago
I too learn more deeply outside of the confines of a structured class. However, I find the structure of an OCW course nearly ideal for many subjects. For me it seems to be at least partially a function of my ability in an area. The stronger I am in a subject, the less structure I need. I suspect the optimal amount of structure varies from person to person and within a person from subject to subject. People learn differently.
st3v3r 11y ago
So they give their experiences with many, many students that they've taught over the years, and you say it's not true because you're different?
- obsurveyor 11y ago
  The example used is flawed to begin with, in my opinion. Some kind of structure is almost required to learn a language in a reasonable amount of time, assuming there is no immediate access to full immersion 24/7.
- fao_ 11y ago
  I have also had the experience with infomally teaching (read with a bias towards 'mentor') programming to people, along with the second hand experience of knowing numerous teachers, including my father. Along with this I was unschooled from the age of eleven, and I have seen the effects of this upon the children -- most notably with a child (Eleven years of age) teaching themselves to read to an adult level in roughly six months -> one year, simply because they were interested in a subject. My example was anecdotal, however when combined with my (Also anecdotal) experiences concerning the education system, the second-hand experiences I noted, and the writings of Russell, Whitehead, Lockheart, and numerous others who also have expounded on the problems with overly structured teaching and similar methods, it provides me with enough evidence to convince me until equal evidence is provided to the contrary. That is why I say it is not true -- or more accurately, that in my experience, it is not true. I accept that a structured environment is a requirement for some people to learn, but I dispute that it is a hard requirement, and I also dispute that it is natural for the general population to require structure to learn.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    My anecdotal experience brought me to similar conclusions. Structure is required in schools because of the way children are taught in schools. And I'm not sure I'd do any different given the same requirements. Even though it doesn't have the best results for every child it scales well enough that most people at least do okay. Take your average child away from that after several years of being part of it and any short term observations are going to make you think structure is critical. Before they do anything else they're going to have to learn that they don't need structure to learn and after that they're going to have to learn how to teach and push themselves.

0xFFC 11y ago

>most people are passive They are not naturally. But society designed by people like you turned them to being passive. Imagine people start education from start in society like this university, everyone will be excited, because they are going to do what they like. My problem with people like you is this.you are scaling your small experience to one of the fundamental things in human kind. Maybe passiveness in your language learning group was other where? Maybe because people was forced to be there? Because of raise? Beacsue of earning respect? Or because of something deep in their unconscious part of their mind. But I am 100% sure if they were truly there, they would have been excited. Things are simple.if you compare them with sex.almost every bode (healthy) excited about sex. Education should be like this.free.and whenever whatever you like. Every person is/will be excited if he/she truely become free to do what they love.

tmptmp 11y ago
>>Imagine people start education from start in society like this university, everyone will be excited, because they are going to do what they like. Anybody and their grandmom may be excited to do what they like; it takes education to learn to do something even if you don't necessarily like it. What he/she seems to be saying by "structured-ness" may have to do with this. Nature forces you to hunt for food, else I am happy to just keep on pondering and doing philosophy because I like it.
st3v3r 11y ago
And how do you pay for it? How do you turn that into being able to support yourself and your family?
crpatino 11y ago
What happens when you find out that what most people think they "like" is to hang up with friends, drink beer, play games and have as much sex as you possibly can? What happens when said group of people finds out there's such horrible things as bankrupcy, or debt collection, or evictions? What happens when they figure out that the things everybody expects them to do to pull themselves out of the mess is complex stuff that cannot be learned on the fly, and that requires years of practice before results can be obtained by investing a reasonable amount of effort? It is good and proper to enjoy ourselves in life, but sometimes you need to force yourself to do stuff that either you must do right now in order to avoid extremely unpleasant outcomes, or that you should do in order to position yourself for more good things to come your way in the future.

rndmize 11y ago

> Most people are passive. They want a teacher to lead them and guide them through the learning process. Bull. Most people have any interest in learning beaten out of them by our crappy factory/prison like educational system. Because you know what's not conducive to learning? Having no choice as far as subjects; having no choice how long you spend on them; having no choice on who to learn from; having no choice who you learn with. PG has a classic essay on makers vs managers on scheduling, and he places emphasis on how for work like programming, getting into the material takes time. I see no reason this wouldn't apply to learning. How much work would most developers get done if they had their day broken into 50 minute segments, five minute transition times, and six different projects they were required to work on every day with equal consistency? My mother runs a Montessori preschool. Consistently, the kids that go off to first grade come back with stories of attending traditional school and wondering when they get to start doing something instead of sitting at their desk. Or when they can do something new instead of going through material they already know with the class. This is not to say Montessori is a perfect system - but it was actually designed with the education of children in mind, rather than efficiency from a bureaucratic perspective. It bothers me greatly when someone blames the nature of people for problems that are systemic in nature - it feels no different from the ridiculous number of ADHD diagnoses we have these days, which seems to largely stem from not giving kids space to be kids.

jbhatab 11y ago
I disagree. I think most people need structure. It may be from personal issues or life issues, but most people need that guidance.
- copperx 11y ago
  Structure and motivation are needed to learn about subjects you are not passionate about. For those things that make your heart race faster, structure is a hindrance. However, to have real mastery of a subject (say, Computer Science), will require you to suffer through parts of the curriculum that don't seem interesting.
tmptmp 11y ago

nostrebored 11y ago

I think you're mistaking socialization for some broader natural truth. My partner was unschooled, and her peers are on average doing much better than mine, having attended the best charter/magnet high school in my state.

entropicmind 11y ago

I agree with the necessity of structure at a younger age. The current public education system in America has strict schedules and classes geared towards getting the lowest common denominator a high school diploma. However in a college setting, which is supposed to prepare you for the real world, it's more of a sink or swim scenario that separates those who are disciplined and are willing to work than those who don't know how to thrive without someone telling them what to do at all times. I'm really interested to see how this new university works out.