3 ms·

I have sung the praises of memorization since I was a kid, and yet the attitude that, with the internet, memorization is no longer required because we have acce

I have sung the praises of memorization since I was a kid, and yet the attitude that, with the internet, memorization is no longer required because we have access to unending knowledge, seems oh so prevalent. One wonders what these advocates must think... do they claim to know Norwegian because they can use Google to translate at any particular instant, for example? One wonders what life might be like for people so confident in their non-existent abilities.

BizarroLand 3y ago
Knowing things is important, but so is knowing where to find how to know things and things to know. I memorized my multiplications tables like a good little boy, and I can do decent amounts of math in my head, but I am not a fast or as capable as the default calculator that comes with every smartphone on the planet.
Pedro_Ribeiro 3y ago
I think you're being a little disingenuous here. Nobody claims to know Norwegian, it's just that the value of knowing it is not as valuable now that I can just use Google Translate to talk to a Norwegian. I do agree that memorization is important, by the way. I just think that it's useless if you can't also derive your way there. Nothing wrong with having checkpoints in your mind though.
wisty 3y ago
A lot of education "experts" (people doing education research, policy and Ted talks) are usually privileged enough that their parents forced them to memorise enough phonics and times tables to get to college, and think that the teachers who tried to do the same were just wasting their precious time when they could have been doing interesting things like talking about philosophy. Education as a discipline has no real knowledge or skills in the Anglosphere beyond basic essay writing. Historically teaching was a craft, taught in trade schools or on the job, but for various reasons it moved to university without universitiea having of the content developed, so universities took the low road and asked PhD candidates to essentially write essays on the philosophy of education so that's now the content. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach teachers, and since the content is just writing essays on the philosophy of education their confidence in non-existent abilities is never pressure tested.
- willhslade 3y ago
  Can you suggest a culture that does it better and/or better methods? Your point of view meshes with mine and I have a young child and I'm worried about the education he's going to get in Canada.
  - lannisterstark 3y ago
    Honestly? it's fine. Every culture does it differently and they all focus in x for lack of y. South Asian cultures for example treat their universities as job training centers (and generally tend to lack liberal arts and social education) whereas universities are ideally supposed to make you a well rounded person etc.
  - wisty 3y ago
    Spending 10 minutes a day on reading or math is probably fine, if you are 1:1 you can just problem solve most issues with a mainstream student, and if they are having major issues look at what special ed teachers do (they are way more scientific than mainstream teachers as they can't rely on the students componsate for bad teaching). For older kids, it can be a bit tricky, as their goals and opinions will matter a lot more, but look into evidence based study habits for exams, and help them get assignments done with a decently efficient process I guess.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. They're not mutually-exclusive sets. In professional schools (law, medicine, perhaps others), some of the best-regarded instructors are successful practitioners who teach on the side.
dotnet00 3y ago
Memorization has its place, such as with medicine or language learning. But the issue most people are referring to when deriding memorization is about memorization that is done for the sake of busy work alone. In school I was tested on memorizing a map and drawing precise borders, rivers etc and various acronyms that were obsolete even at that time. They added 0 value to my education, except as unnecessary stress in having to memorize them. Similarly with being expected to memorize various physics and math theorems such that understanding was treated as having zero value (that is, if your wording isn't exactly the same as in the textbook, it doesn't matter if your answer is actually perfectly correct in terms of understanding). It was to the point of being prescribed several arbitrary essays to memorize, with one of them being randomly expected to be reproduced in an exam. None of that added any value, most of it turned out to be hilariously divorced from real life expectations. Even with your disingenuous example of language learning. People who argue that they don't need to learn the language because they can just use a translation app are making the point that they aren't interested in learning the language and have limited enough need to interact in it to get by with just a translator. Anyone who has actually interacted with a language they don't know understands that translation software doesn't obsolete knowing a language.

BizarroLand 3y ago

Knowing things is important, but so is knowing where to find how to know things and things to know. I memorized my multiplications tables like a good little boy, and I can do decent amounts of math in my head, but I am not a fast or as capable as the default calculator that comes with every smartphone on the planet.

Pedro_Ribeiro 3y ago

I think you're being a little disingenuous here. Nobody claims to know Norwegian, it's just that the value of knowing it is not as valuable now that I can just use Google Translate to talk to a Norwegian. I do agree that memorization is important, by the way. I just think that it's useless if you can't also derive your way there. Nothing wrong with having checkpoints in your mind though.

wisty 3y ago

A lot of education "experts" (people doing education research, policy and Ted talks) are usually privileged enough that their parents forced them to memorise enough phonics and times tables to get to college, and think that the teachers who tried to do the same were just wasting their precious time when they could have been doing interesting things like talking about philosophy. Education as a discipline has no real knowledge or skills in the Anglosphere beyond basic essay writing. Historically teaching was a craft, taught in trade schools or on the job, but for various reasons it moved to university without universitiea having of the content developed, so universities took the low road and asked PhD candidates to essentially write essays on the philosophy of education so that's now the content. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach teachers, and since the content is just writing essays on the philosophy of education their confidence in non-existent abilities is never pressure tested.

willhslade 3y ago
Can you suggest a culture that does it better and/or better methods? Your point of view meshes with mine and I have a young child and I'm worried about the education he's going to get in Canada.
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  Honestly? it's fine. Every culture does it differently and they all focus in x for lack of y. South Asian cultures for example treat their universities as job training centers (and generally tend to lack liberal arts and social education) whereas universities are ideally supposed to make you a well rounded person etc.
- wisty 3y ago
  Spending 10 minutes a day on reading or math is probably fine, if you are 1:1 you can just problem solve most issues with a mainstream student, and if they are having major issues look at what special ed teachers do (they are way more scientific than mainstream teachers as they can't rely on the students componsate for bad teaching). For older kids, it can be a bit tricky, as their goals and opinions will matter a lot more, but look into evidence based study habits for exams, and help them get assignments done with a decently efficient process I guess.
dctoedt 3y ago
> Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. They're not mutually-exclusive sets. In professional schools (law, medicine, perhaps others), some of the best-regarded instructors are successful practitioners who teach on the side.

dotnet00 3y ago

Memorization has its place, such as with medicine or language learning. But the issue most people are referring to when deriding memorization is about memorization that is done for the sake of busy work alone. In school I was tested on memorizing a map and drawing precise borders, rivers etc and various acronyms that were obsolete even at that time. They added 0 value to my education, except as unnecessary stress in having to memorize them. Similarly with being expected to memorize various physics and math theorems such that understanding was treated as having zero value (that is, if your wording isn't exactly the same as in the textbook, it doesn't matter if your answer is actually perfectly correct in terms of understanding). It was to the point of being prescribed several arbitrary essays to memorize, with one of them being randomly expected to be reproduced in an exam. None of that added any value, most of it turned out to be hilariously divorced from real life expectations. Even with your disingenuous example of language learning. People who argue that they don't need to learn the language because they can just use a translation app are making the point that they aren't interested in learning the language and have limited enough need to interact in it to get by with just a translator. Anyone who has actually interacted with a language they don't know understands that translation software doesn't obsolete knowing a language.