4 ms·

Even in America, education isn't like that, is it?. I've done a college entrance exam from there and it was full of questions that required problem solving, und

Even in America, education isn't like that, is it?. I've done a college entrance exam from there and it was full of questions that required problem solving, understanding, and intelligence, not naming concepts. I even remember being surprised how it managed to avoid using the names of concepts in the questions and described scenarios instead. I've been a teacher in other countries and it's not like that there either. No test would ever ask that question about combustion. Even not knowing a word wasn't penalized - if the student could convey the idea with a picture or slang or whatever, that would be fine too. Whenever I had the freedom to, I'd make my tests open-book or bring-your-own-notes. I'd also give them any formulas they'd need. Rote memorization wasn't going to help them.

germinalphrase 7y ago
No. The author doesn’t know what they’re talking about. It’s uninformed speculation and hubris.
kathe-rine 7y ago
This does not line up with my experience attending a fairly average / slightly above average US public school. At least half my classes largely required problem-solving and critical thinking. I spent a fair amount of time parroting stuff but that's unavoidable early in education, and most of my teacher's used it as a base for higher thinking. My primary and secondary education could certainly have been better, but this article strikes me as a gross and counterproductive exaggeration.
astura 7y ago
No, this author clearly has no experience with education but wants to sound smart.
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  Ironically you are displaying the very problem he addresses. A smart-ass "authority" simply asserting something which we should take as truth, because there is an implication that "astura" has experience in education and knows what he/she is talking about. Ironically you prove his point. The problem today are too many astura style assertions of truth "listen to me, I have experience!!!" instead of promoting critical thinking and genuine understanding.
organsnyder 7y ago
The closest I've come to this is when I was doing my (now on-hold, potentially permanently) MBA. Some courses (especially strategy, leadership, ethics, and law) were extremely good, but others (econ, accounting) were stuck on rote memorization and calculations. It was the combination of a semester of econ+accounting, plus applying the knowledge of the opportunity cost concept that I had been exposed to in a previous class, that convinced me continuing in the program was not the most optimal investment for me (so here I am, slacking off on HN instead...).
Proziam 7y ago
I attended an expensive private school until 6th grade, a typical public school from 6th-8th grade, and did my 'high-school' years at an online school. I learned legitimate skills at the private and traditional public schools. I learned nothing of value at the cyber school. The first two actually focused on developing a concept to the point where it could be applied. Math was one such example. The cyber school was very obviously designed to allow the students to just cheat. As in, literally have the book open in your lap and take the test. If I had gone to the cyber school for my entire education cycle I'd undoubtedly be severely disadvantaged in the same way described by the [0] article (about Feynman )linked in another comment. Parroting facts can get you the job, but it won't help you do the job. [0] https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education
saint_fiasco 7y ago
I had some tests like that in grade school and middle school. They would mostly ask for memorized definitions or describe a scenario that was copied from the textbook. Sure, those tests were not important in the long run, but at the time most of my day was dedicated to that sort of pointless bullshit.
socialdemocrat 7y ago
I don't think you are seeing the forrest for the trees. He is trying to explain the problem in an abstracted and condensed form. He is not suggesting that the combustion example is literally the question you get. Although the GRE tests e.g. so important in the US, are almost literally of this kind. It requires massive memorization to score well on. I know because I had to take the damn thing to get into a US university. > No test would ever ask that question about combustion. Even not knowing a word wasn't penalized - if the student could convey the idea with a picture or slang or whatever, that would be fine too. The example is not meant to be taken this literally. Rather it is that the type of explanation you are expected to give is often very narrowly defined. I have plenty of experience with this. I remember in my algorithm class. I helped a lot of students who struggled with understanding algorithms. At the exam several of them got much better score than me despite me knowing I had far better grasp of the concepts. The difference is that I used my own words to explain concepts, while students who got top score basically regurgitated the teacher. I have helped high school students with math problems. I tried showing them different ways to solve the same problem to get them to understand how to think about a problem. However they were terrified of learning alternative ways of doing it. They insisted I teach them to solve the problem EXACTLY as their teacher had. Step by step entirely mechanically. That is what the school system encourages: regurgitation. They may not be asked to say individual words like "combustion" but the get accustomed to solving problems in a very standardised mechanical fashion. > Whenever I had the freedom to, I'd make my tests open-book or bring-your-own-notes. I'd also give them any formulas they'd need. Rote memorization wasn't going to help them. In many ways that may be counter productive. E.g. in my physics class I memorized very few equations. Instead I learned to understand them and derive them myself. During test I could derive any equation I needed. If I had been allowed to bring the book, I could have simply looked up the equation. No need to understand it. No need to be able to derive it yourself. Hence I don't think that really solved any problem. That is like using Google as a substitute for real understanding. And really the problem runs far deeper than this. The problem is that many of the school books themselves don't actually teach any understanding. Chemistry books are a good example of this. They just spit out facts starting from the atom and building it up. A few years ago I came across a chemistry book that really opened my eyes on how to approach the material. It starts with chemical reactions, and add theory to help you understand and predict things about these reactions. They add one little piece of theory for each problem. As you hit on new problems to explain a chemical reaction, they add another piece of theory. Or rather they refine the theory. Rather than an incremental presentation of atom theory it is an iterative explanation. They begin with very simple models of chemical reactions which does not involved atoms at all. You end up with modern atomic theory towards the end of the book as that is needed to grasp more complex reactions or details. The important part of this approach is that it teaches scientific thinking. It teaches how to think about chemistry. It teaches that science is about building models and using those for making good predictions. Science as taught today turns it all on its head. It gives you the answer before you even heard the question in a sense. You are explained atom theory without a clear sense of why it is needed. In a sense the teaching method is no different than religious instruction. An authority tells you facts you must believe in, but you are given no rational reason for why you should believe these things. Why does any of this matter? Because we live in a world full of "fake news" and pseudo science, and people cannot tell the difference because they have only been taught to listen to authorities. They have not been taught why this explanation makes MORE sense than an alternative explanation.

germinalphrase 7y ago

No. The author doesn’t know what they’re talking about. It’s uninformed speculation and hubris.

kathe-rine 7y ago

This does not line up with my experience attending a fairly average / slightly above average US public school. At least half my classes largely required problem-solving and critical thinking. I spent a fair amount of time parroting stuff but that's unavoidable early in education, and most of my teacher's used it as a base for higher thinking. My primary and secondary education could certainly have been better, but this article strikes me as a gross and counterproductive exaggeration.

astura 7y ago

No, this author clearly has no experience with education but wants to sound smart.

socialdemocrat 7y ago
Ironically you are displaying the very problem he addresses. A smart-ass "authority" simply asserting something which we should take as truth, because there is an implication that "astura" has experience in education and knows what he/she is talking about. Ironically you prove his point. The problem today are too many astura style assertions of truth "listen to me, I have experience!!!" instead of promoting critical thinking and genuine understanding.

organsnyder 7y ago

The closest I've come to this is when I was doing my (now on-hold, potentially permanently) MBA. Some courses (especially strategy, leadership, ethics, and law) were extremely good, but others (econ, accounting) were stuck on rote memorization and calculations. It was the combination of a semester of econ+accounting, plus applying the knowledge of the opportunity cost concept that I had been exposed to in a previous class, that convinced me continuing in the program was not the most optimal investment for me (so here I am, slacking off on HN instead...).

Proziam 7y ago

I attended an expensive private school until 6th grade, a typical public school from 6th-8th grade, and did my 'high-school' years at an online school. I learned legitimate skills at the private and traditional public schools. I learned nothing of value at the cyber school. The first two actually focused on developing a concept to the point where it could be applied. Math was one such example. The cyber school was very obviously designed to allow the students to just cheat. As in, literally have the book open in your lap and take the test. If I had gone to the cyber school for my entire education cycle I'd undoubtedly be severely disadvantaged in the same way described by the [0] article (about Feynman )linked in another comment. Parroting facts can get you the job, but it won't help you do the job. [0] https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

saint_fiasco 7y ago

I had some tests like that in grade school and middle school. They would mostly ask for memorized definitions or describe a scenario that was copied from the textbook. Sure, those tests were not important in the long run, but at the time most of my day was dedicated to that sort of pointless bullshit.

socialdemocrat 7y ago

I don't think you are seeing the forrest for the trees. He is trying to explain the problem in an abstracted and condensed form. He is not suggesting that the combustion example is literally the question you get. Although the GRE tests e.g. so important in the US, are almost literally of this kind. It requires massive memorization to score well on. I know because I had to take the damn thing to get into a US university. > No test would ever ask that question about combustion. Even not knowing a word wasn't penalized - if the student could convey the idea with a picture or slang or whatever, that would be fine too. The example is not meant to be taken this literally. Rather it is that the type of explanation you are expected to give is often very narrowly defined. I have plenty of experience with this. I remember in my algorithm class. I helped a lot of students who struggled with understanding algorithms. At the exam several of them got much better score than me despite me knowing I had far better grasp of the concepts. The difference is that I used my own words to explain concepts, while students who got top score basically regurgitated the teacher. I have helped high school students with math problems. I tried showing them different ways to solve the same problem to get them to understand how to think about a problem. However they were terrified of learning alternative ways of doing it. They insisted I teach them to solve the problem EXACTLY as their teacher had. Step by step entirely mechanically. That is what the school system encourages: regurgitation. They may not be asked to say individual words like "combustion" but the get accustomed to solving problems in a very standardised mechanical fashion. > Whenever I had the freedom to, I'd make my tests open-book or bring-your-own-notes. I'd also give them any formulas they'd need. Rote memorization wasn't going to help them. In many ways that may be counter productive. E.g. in my physics class I memorized very few equations. Instead I learned to understand them and derive them myself. During test I could derive any equation I needed. If I had been allowed to bring the book, I could have simply looked up the equation. No need to understand it. No need to be able to derive it yourself. Hence I don't think that really solved any problem. That is like using Google as a substitute for real understanding. And really the problem runs far deeper than this. The problem is that many of the school books themselves don't actually teach any understanding. Chemistry books are a good example of this. They just spit out facts starting from the atom and building it up. A few years ago I came across a chemistry book that really opened my eyes on how to approach the material. It starts with chemical reactions, and add theory to help you understand and predict things about these reactions. They add one little piece of theory for each problem. As you hit on new problems to explain a chemical reaction, they add another piece of theory. Or rather they refine the theory. Rather than an incremental presentation of atom theory it is an iterative explanation. They begin with very simple models of chemical reactions which does not involved atoms at all. You end up with modern atomic theory towards the end of the book as that is needed to grasp more complex reactions or details. The important part of this approach is that it teaches scientific thinking. It teaches how to think about chemistry. It teaches that science is about building models and using those for making good predictions. Science as taught today turns it all on its head. It gives you the answer before you even heard the question in a sense. You are explained atom theory without a clear sense of why it is needed. In a sense the teaching method is no different than religious instruction. An authority tells you facts you must believe in, but you are given no rational reason for why you should believe these things. Why does any of this matter? Because we live in a world full of "fake news" and pseudo science, and people cannot tell the difference because they have only been taught to listen to authorities. They have not been taught why this explanation makes MORE sense than an alternative explanation.