4 ms·

Motivated children can easily outpace public-schooled children with 3 or 4 days a week at 3 hours a day. They can be very self-directed, but the trouble with it

Motivated children can easily outpace public-schooled children with 3 or 4 days a week at 3 hours a day. They can be very self-directed, but the trouble with it is they go down rabbit holes and they'll excel at one or two subjects to the detriment of others. My daughter would want to spend 6-10 hours a day on art, but wouldn't want to do her French or math homework. My son just told me that alef (in the Hebrew alphabet) was the symbol for Graham's number, but balks when I try to get him to memorize his multiplication tables. > And since they are different ages, I worry that if I taught them all at the same time, the curriculum would average into something too challenging If there is a subject where that is the case, I do not know what it would be. Once they're past the age of 7 or 8, most or all children are capable of what they would be at older ages. I don't think, for instance, that an 8 yr old learning to read is slower at it than one learning that for the first time at age 14. For the record though, didn't get to teach my son to read. With his sister, I tried from age three on up... every few months I'd see if she was more agreeable to it, and she wanted nothing to do with it until sevenish. She could sound words out phonetically if I pushed from the start, but with a look on her face like I was pulling teeth with pliers. So I waited with my son until he was almost seven... and he could just read. I have no idea how. My wife claims she didn't, and his sister certainly didn't either. I think, really, that public schools doing age segregation has more to do with them trying to perfectly homogenize the product they crank off the assembly line, than it does with making sure each student gets enough learning opportunity.

rolisz 3y ago
> If there is a subject where that is the case, I do not know what it would be. Once they're past the age of 7 or 8, most or all children are capable of what they would be at older ages. I don't think, for instance, that an 8 yr old learning to read is slower at it than one learning that for the first time at age 14. From personal experience: I first encountered differential equations in highschool, while preparing for physics Olympiad. I could solve basic equations, but I didn't understand what I was doing and for example the damped oscillator equation was mistifying. Fast forward to university, in the first diffential equation class, everything made perfect sense and I found it super easy. There was probably at least two years between the two stories.
- tomp 3y ago
  It was the same for me with stochastic processes. Most likely has nothing to do with age, but simply the fact that it was the second time you’ve encountered it. Your brain spent 2 years subconsciously processing it.
  - ljlolel 3y ago
    Yes it’s going to be a lot easier for you than the people seeing it for the first time who have to spend a bunch of time cranking equations.
  - rolisz 3y ago
    But then in the learning to read example, a 14 year old learning to read has seen a ton more letters around them (on billboards, book covers, phones, etc) so it should be easier for them to learn then for an 8 year old.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> the trouble with it is they go down rabbit holes and they'll excel at one or two subjects to the detriment of others. In what sense is that a form of "trouble"? How is it different from any other educational system?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  It's less than optimal.
SamBam 3y ago
> My son just told me that alef (in the Hebrew alphabet) was the symbol for Graham's number, but balks when I try to get him to memorize his multiplication tables. I, too, learned about Graham's number when the YouTube algorithm decided that I liked math videos. The issue with learning like this, though, is that it's called "edutainment," and, while it scratches the same itch in our brains as learning, rarely actually produces learnings. Ask him in a week what he remembers about Graham's number. I'd be impressed if he recalled much. Also, if he had a good teacher, that teacher would have been able to push back when he was mixing up concepts. Aleph is not the symbol for Graham's number, rather it is the symbol for Cantor's orders of infinity.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > Aleph is not the symbol for Graham's number, rather it is the symbol for Cantor's orders of infinity. So? We weren't doing math theory. Foreign language instead. He's allowed to entertain himself after his lessons are done, and he'll be familiar with that stuff when he does get there. > Also, if he had a good teacher, Sure. If he had one. The implication that there's any such teacher in public schools within 100 miles of us is absurd.

rolisz 3y ago

> If there is a subject where that is the case, I do not know what it would be. Once they're past the age of 7 or 8, most or all children are capable of what they would be at older ages. I don't think, for instance, that an 8 yr old learning to read is slower at it than one learning that for the first time at age 14. From personal experience: I first encountered differential equations in highschool, while preparing for physics Olympiad. I could solve basic equations, but I didn't understand what I was doing and for example the damped oscillator equation was mistifying. Fast forward to university, in the first diffential equation class, everything made perfect sense and I found it super easy. There was probably at least two years between the two stories.

tomp 3y ago
It was the same for me with stochastic processes. Most likely has nothing to do with age, but simply the fact that it was the second time you’ve encountered it. Your brain spent 2 years subconsciously processing it.
- ljlolel 3y ago
  Yes it’s going to be a lot easier for you than the people seeing it for the first time who have to spend a bunch of time cranking equations.
- rolisz 3y ago
  But then in the learning to read example, a 14 year old learning to read has seen a ton more letters around them (on billboards, book covers, phones, etc) so it should be easier for them to learn then for an 8 year old.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> the trouble with it is they go down rabbit holes and they'll excel at one or two subjects to the detriment of others. In what sense is that a form of "trouble"? How is it different from any other educational system?

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
It's less than optimal.

SamBam 3y ago

> My son just told me that alef (in the Hebrew alphabet) was the symbol for Graham's number, but balks when I try to get him to memorize his multiplication tables. I, too, learned about Graham's number when the YouTube algorithm decided that I liked math videos. The issue with learning like this, though, is that it's called "edutainment," and, while it scratches the same itch in our brains as learning, rarely actually produces learnings. Ask him in a week what he remembers about Graham's number. I'd be impressed if he recalled much. Also, if he had a good teacher, that teacher would have been able to push back when he was mixing up concepts. Aleph is not the symbol for Graham's number, rather it is the symbol for Cantor's orders of infinity.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> Aleph is not the symbol for Graham's number, rather it is the symbol for Cantor's orders of infinity. So? We weren't doing math theory. Foreign language instead. He's allowed to entertain himself after his lessons are done, and he'll be familiar with that stuff when he does get there. > Also, if he had a good teacher, Sure. If he had one. The implication that there's any such teacher in public schools within 100 miles of us is absurd.