3 ms·

I'm fine with proofs and am unsure where you see me stating otherwise. ;) Would you please point out where I say I don't like them? Me being bored in an art cla

I'm fine with proofs and am unsure where you see me stating otherwise. ;) Would you please point out where I say I don't like them? Me being bored in an art class doesn't translate to me hating art. (I suspect you may be projecting external feelings onto me.) I didn't like the non-university classes either, but I produced math in them. I wouldn't enjoy programming in PHP in a cubicle, but I can deliver software this way. Of course, proofs are not all that math is, and I have a vague suspicion that many mathematicians leave "rigor" as a fairly un-analyzed concept, ironically... but math's foundations would be far weaker without proofs. My disagreements with these societal practices is more about an educational approach, than the technical concepts of mathematics itself. If I went to a very fundamentalist religious school, I probably would have criticisms about it too. Do you see no difference in the effectiveness of teaching methods? Might I not think one has severe flaws, as a consumer/producer who put in the hard work, and mention improvements?

hackinthebochs 16y ago
>I'm fine with proofs and am unsure where you see me stating otherwise. It was an assumption based on your words (epsilon delta proofs and whatever else we did were tedious) and my experiences with people who dislike classes of proof-based math. No projecting here--I enjoyed my analysis class. We a fair number of epsilon-delta proofs. My issue with your initial response was that you were implicitly blaming the class for being boring and causing you to lose your enthusiasm for math. My point is that its not their job to foster your enthusiasm, especially at that level. Now of course, we should always be re-evaluating how subjects are taught to make sure information is being conveyed as best as possible. But we have to resist the temptation to immediately blame a student's failing (by any measure) on the teacher being inadequate in some way. If we start the conversation on that note then the space of potential solutions becomes severely restricted.
- calibraxis 16y ago
  (Yes, to clarify, by "projecting external feelings", I didn't necessarily mean your feelings, but those of people you've met. Maybe I was unclear.) I am what you might call an autodidact. When I observe an institution isn't sufficiently good, I pivot and fulfill my requirements elsewhere, for example by reading a book or meeting passionate people informally. I do not believe that this autodidacticism is great efficiency-wise, but often it's unfortunately better than alternatives. When evaluating the earlier poster's anecdote of teaching 180 adults, of course it's very unlikely that she/he had the terrible luck to draw 180 (or even 100) genetic freaks who were born with terrible attitudes. (And even if she/he did, just wait a semester and problem solved!) Far more likely to me: at least one major institution failed them along the way. So it is clearly useful to identify which ones failed — especially if it's the one you're in, as that's the one you have most control over. (Teachers in particular have a position of power in the classroom.) (The power of institutional analysis is you can completely replace the people in them, and they'll still function essentially the same.) More important — if you realize that your approach is clearly unsuccessful, I think you need to stop, reevaluate and probably pivot. Be open to shattering your worldview. Rather than plod on stubbornly in a direction you know leads to abject failure, because most people around you are willing to fail miserably in the same way. (Or because "But it's not in my job description!") I do not intend to be such an extreme romanticist of failure. In fact, today I happened to institute post-mortems at work, to identify our little failures. Not to blame, but to improve. It is important for teachers to have good attitudes, and it's disheartening to meet those ironically unwilling to learn. But I've met wonderful teachers.
  - hackinthebochs 16y ago
    I agree with all your points. My gripe is basically that, in most discussions I've seen about the failings of schools, the problem is always "identified" as being a failing of the teacher. It's taboo to raise issue with students own internal motivations, environment, home life, etc. We need to be willing to point fingers at everyone involved.

hackinthebochs 16y ago

>I'm fine with proofs and am unsure where you see me stating otherwise. It was an assumption based on your words (epsilon delta proofs and whatever else we did were tedious) and my experiences with people who dislike classes of proof-based math. No projecting here--I enjoyed my analysis class. We a fair number of epsilon-delta proofs. My issue with your initial response was that you were implicitly blaming the class for being boring and causing you to lose your enthusiasm for math. My point is that its not their job to foster your enthusiasm, especially at that level. Now of course, we should always be re-evaluating how subjects are taught to make sure information is being conveyed as best as possible. But we have to resist the temptation to immediately blame a student's failing (by any measure) on the teacher being inadequate in some way. If we start the conversation on that note then the space of potential solutions becomes severely restricted.

calibraxis 16y ago
(Yes, to clarify, by "projecting external feelings", I didn't necessarily mean your feelings, but those of people you've met. Maybe I was unclear.) I am what you might call an autodidact. When I observe an institution isn't sufficiently good, I pivot and fulfill my requirements elsewhere, for example by reading a book or meeting passionate people informally. I do not believe that this autodidacticism is great efficiency-wise, but often it's unfortunately better than alternatives. When evaluating the earlier poster's anecdote of teaching 180 adults, of course it's very unlikely that she/he had the terrible luck to draw 180 (or even 100) genetic freaks who were born with terrible attitudes. (And even if she/he did, just wait a semester and problem solved!) Far more likely to me: at least one major institution failed them along the way. So it is clearly useful to identify which ones failed — especially if it's the one you're in, as that's the one you have most control over. (Teachers in particular have a position of power in the classroom.) (The power of institutional analysis is you can completely replace the people in them, and they'll still function essentially the same.) More important — if you realize that your approach is clearly unsuccessful, I think you need to stop, reevaluate and probably pivot. Be open to shattering your worldview. Rather than plod on stubbornly in a direction you know leads to abject failure, because most people around you are willing to fail miserably in the same way. (Or because "But it's not in my job description!") I do not intend to be such an extreme romanticist of failure. In fact, today I happened to institute post-mortems at work, to identify our little failures. Not to blame, but to improve. It is important for teachers to have good attitudes, and it's disheartening to meet those ironically unwilling to learn. But I've met wonderful teachers.
- hackinthebochs 16y ago
  I agree with all your points. My gripe is basically that, in most discussions I've seen about the failings of schools, the problem is always "identified" as being a failing of the teacher. It's taboo to raise issue with students own internal motivations, environment, home life, etc. We need to be willing to point fingers at everyone involved.