4 ms·

There is always a "why", else what would be the use of teaching the subject in the first place, even to enthusiastic students? OP's point is that helping the s

by kmoser 3y ago

There is always a "why", else what would be the use of teaching the subject in the first place, even to enthusiastic students? OP's point is that helping the students understand the "why" might spark interest in them. Even if you reach one kid, you will have achieved your intended result.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
The why the course is useful to know may not actually ever be relevant to the students why they’re taking the class, and no amount of informing the student how it’s useful will assist them. Knowing firsthand the value of tax knowledge doesn’t mean I have any level of enthusiasm about my taxes… Btw, for your baking example: the great British bake off is a wildly popular show and yet almost none of the people I know who are fans care to even try to learn baking themselves. I just don’t think it’s a think that happens to any degree you think it does.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > the great British bake off is a wildly popular show and yet almost none of the people I know who are fans care to even try to learn baking themselves. You're missing the point of teaching anything. Teaching is (literally) the act of grooming someone to be receptive to an idea. It's different from training, which is the act of coaching someone into doing something. When the day comes where one of those fans does try to bake something, everything they saw on the show is going to resonate in a way it wouldn't for someone without the exposure. I don't bake, but I now know two ways in which greasy meat leads to a soggy bottom.
  - shortrounddev2 3y ago
    Most people go to college for training; they could not care less about receptivity to ideas. There is this myth that college is about expanding one's mind and worldview. It is not. It is about improving and ensuring one's economic class. Only professors forsake a job in the real world for these ideals. Everybody else is there to secure their spot in the middle class, and they don't care about superfluous information
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      > Most people go to college for training; they could not care less about receptivity to ideas And they come out of it disappointed that they don't actually know how to do anything. > There is this myth that college is about expanding one's mind and worldview. I used to think that was a myth too. So much so I did it twice. College is wasted on the young. It took decades of experience for me to recognize how much of my college experience consisted of being fed blatant lies meant to foster critical thought.
      - shortrounddev2 3y ago
        > And they come out of it disappointed that they don't actually know how to do anything. Mostly because, as the OP post points out, the lecturing model is very bad at teaching most things. College's never innovate
shortrounddev2 3y ago
> what would be the use of teaching the subject in the first place, even to enthusiastic students? This is something which you should always ask yourself in a class. What use is this class? Usually the "why" is: "nobody would take this class unless we forced them to, and the English department would starve to death without forced pre-requisites" > Even if you reach one kid, you will have achieved your intended result If you reach 1 kid in a class of 30 you have objectively failed

by kmoser 3y ago

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

The why the course is useful to know may not actually ever be relevant to the students why they’re taking the class, and no amount of informing the student how it’s useful will assist them. Knowing firsthand the value of tax knowledge doesn’t mean I have any level of enthusiasm about my taxes… Btw, for your baking example: the great British bake off is a wildly popular show and yet almost none of the people I know who are fans care to even try to learn baking themselves. I just don’t think it’s a think that happens to any degree you think it does.

jstarfish 3y ago
> the great British bake off is a wildly popular show and yet almost none of the people I know who are fans care to even try to learn baking themselves. You're missing the point of teaching anything. Teaching is (literally) the act of grooming someone to be receptive to an idea. It's different from training, which is the act of coaching someone into doing something. When the day comes where one of those fans does try to bake something, everything they saw on the show is going to resonate in a way it wouldn't for someone without the exposure. I don't bake, but I now know two ways in which greasy meat leads to a soggy bottom.
- shortrounddev2 3y ago
  Most people go to college for training; they could not care less about receptivity to ideas. There is this myth that college is about expanding one's mind and worldview. It is not. It is about improving and ensuring one's economic class. Only professors forsake a job in the real world for these ideals. Everybody else is there to secure their spot in the middle class, and they don't care about superfluous information
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > Most people go to college for training; they could not care less about receptivity to ideas And they come out of it disappointed that they don't actually know how to do anything. > There is this myth that college is about expanding one's mind and worldview. I used to think that was a myth too. So much so I did it twice. College is wasted on the young. It took decades of experience for me to recognize how much of my college experience consisted of being fed blatant lies meant to foster critical thought.
    - shortrounddev2 3y ago
      > And they come out of it disappointed that they don't actually know how to do anything. Mostly because, as the OP post points out, the lecturing model is very bad at teaching most things. College's never innovate

shortrounddev2 3y ago

> what would be the use of teaching the subject in the first place, even to enthusiastic students? This is something which you should always ask yourself in a class. What use is this class? Usually the "why" is: "nobody would take this class unless we forced them to, and the English department would starve to death without forced pre-requisites" > Even if you reach one kid, you will have achieved your intended result If you reach 1 kid in a class of 30 you have objectively failed