3 ms·

> I am from Brazil and got basically the best education money can buy So maybe you're not the best qualified to determine what works best for the poor? Have y

> I am from Brazil and got basically the best education money can buy So maybe you're not the best qualified to determine what works best for the poor? Have you ever been 1 of 40 students with a text book that is falling apart, with kids fighting in the class room, with a teacher who doesn't give a shit? What's easier, buying a $100 tablet, or turning a school around? The idea that education won't be revolutionized by technology is willfully ignorant. Kids will put on a virtual reality headset and talk to AI teachers, if someone had the pocket to build it. Kids don't need to go to school. Obedience training needs to end. Poor kids need a way to learn skills that are in demand. Technology is the only way forward, not lining the pockets of NGO employees.

FiveSquared 8y ago
This sounds like a line from Slicon Valley.
veddox 8y ago
> What's easier, buying a $100 tablet, or turning a school around? Buying the tablet is easier, if you have the money. But just how long do you think it's going to last in that kind of environment? Turning the school around is a thousand times harder - but if you manage, you're going to impact more than a thousand times more students than you would with one lousy tablet. > Poor kids need a way to learn skills that are in demand. In the context they live in, the skills that are in demand are agriculture and reading - not the current fad in web frameworks.
soneca 8y ago
I do not determine what works best for the poor. I was reproducingy wife's opinion (that has a very different background from mine) that is backed by some studies. I also made very clear that there is lack of evidence that technology (as in computers in the classroom) help so far. I never said I am against trying to revolutionize the education with tech, I just said it isn't revolutionizing right now, as the article implies. You are fighting an idealized enemy here, not debating with me. You are arguing to inexistent arguments that would make you feel good about your own strong ideas. Not actually bothering to understand my point. And acusing my wife of corruption or unethical behavior was just shitty.
- smokeyj 8y ago
  > I was reproducingy wife's opinion (that has a very different background from mine) that is backed by some studies. What studies? Help me out here. I'm trying to understand how having high quality instructions are harmful to people who can't afford quality teachers. > I also made very clear that there is lack of evidence that technology (as in computers in the classroom) help so far. What about the evidence in the article? Did you read it? What evidence do you have? > Not actually bothering to understand my point. That your wife is some authority on education and thinks technology is bad. Profound. > And acusing my wife of corruption or unethical behavior was just shitty. Didn't say that. But at some point "cancer awareness" organizations exist to keep their members employed and not actually curing cancer. Human nature and all that.

FiveSquared 8y ago

This sounds like a line from Slicon Valley.

veddox 8y ago

> What's easier, buying a $100 tablet, or turning a school around? Buying the tablet is easier, if you have the money. But just how long do you think it's going to last in that kind of environment? Turning the school around is a thousand times harder - but if you manage, you're going to impact more than a thousand times more students than you would with one lousy tablet. > Poor kids need a way to learn skills that are in demand. In the context they live in, the skills that are in demand are agriculture and reading - not the current fad in web frameworks.

soneca 8y ago

I do not determine what works best for the poor. I was reproducingy wife's opinion (that has a very different background from mine) that is backed by some studies. I also made very clear that there is lack of evidence that technology (as in computers in the classroom) help so far. I never said I am against trying to revolutionize the education with tech, I just said it isn't revolutionizing right now, as the article implies. You are fighting an idealized enemy here, not debating with me. You are arguing to inexistent arguments that would make you feel good about your own strong ideas. Not actually bothering to understand my point. And acusing my wife of corruption or unethical behavior was just shitty.

smokeyj 8y ago
> I was reproducingy wife's opinion (that has a very different background from mine) that is backed by some studies. What studies? Help me out here. I'm trying to understand how having high quality instructions are harmful to people who can't afford quality teachers. > I also made very clear that there is lack of evidence that technology (as in computers in the classroom) help so far. What about the evidence in the article? Did you read it? What evidence do you have? > Not actually bothering to understand my point. That your wife is some authority on education and thinks technology is bad. Profound. > And acusing my wife of corruption or unethical behavior was just shitty. Didn't say that. But at some point "cancer awareness" organizations exist to keep their members employed and not actually curing cancer. Human nature and all that.