3 ms·
The answer is no. What you propose is teaching to the lowest common denominator, which is precisely what happens in the public (grade) school system in America
by glitchc 3y ago
The answer is no.
What you propose is teaching to the lowest common denominator, which is precisely what happens in the public (grade) school system in America, and is also precisely why our high school students are falling behind their global contemporaries.
A bachelor's in computer engineering indicates a certain minimum bar of proficiency. Those who cannot meet the bar will not earn the degree. A typical semester has twelve weeks of instruction, three hours per week. Spending time on remedial algebra comes at the cost of not covering a relevant curriculum topic. If each course did this, engineers would graduate with major gaps in knowledge.
This is why catering to the lowest common denominator can only lower the bar, and would result in engineers that can't problem-solve their way out of a paper bag, let alone compete globally.
- zozbot234 3y agoThere is a difference between teaching to the lowest common denominator and teaching for mastery. The latter requires making students aware of where their gaps are, even if they must address them on their own for time scheduling reasons. You don't have to spend hours on covering remedial algebra, but you can spend a few seconds reminding students that fluency with algebra is a prereq for the course, and they can't expect to pass unless they address that promptly.
- kiba 3y agoYou could have separate remedial classes for these students if they don't already exists.
- glitchc 3y agoYup, and many universities, recognizing the gaps in public education, already do. But they are extra courses that one has to take in addition to the degree requirements. They make it the student's problem, not theirs, which is indeed how it should be. A university isn't a place that trains a person. That's what colleges and vocational schools are for. Rather, a university is a place where resources are made available so that a person can learn for themselves.
- kiba 3y agoA university isn't a place that trains a person. That's what colleges and vocational schools are for. Rather, a university is a place where resources are made available so that a person can learn for themselves. Hardly. Youtube already served that function, but it doesn't teach or train, which is the university's job. A student's responsibility should be to set them up their success, not to unload a university's burden onto them. It would be ideal for students to be self supporting and self teaching to the point of not needing teachers, but the ideal is for universities to offer the greatest resources, teachers, and tutors to overcome any difficulties students may have.
- kiba 3y agoWhat you propose is teaching to the lowest common denominator, which is precisely what happens in the public (grade) school system in America, and is also precisely why our high school students are falling behind their global contemporaries. I don't see why schools shouldn't teach the 'lowest common denominator'. Perhaps they should be separated into their own classes?
- rtkwe 3y ago> Perhaps they should be separated into their own classes? This is called tracking in educational parlance and is largely detrimental to students and has all sorts of problems with exacerbating existing socio-economic issues the students come in with. Usually better to have additional remedial classes to try to catch those students up but by the time you're in college there's a certain level of self starter ness expected.