2 ms·

> More time in discussion with an expert could potentially fill in those gaps. Those gaps were left by the removal, and lack of coverage towards critical think

> More time in discussion with an expert could potentially fill in those gaps. Those gaps were left by the removal, and lack of coverage towards critical thinking and reasoning which normally preceded these classes. You don't see these issues in cohorts that have received classical education focused on first-principles. Coverage of Descartes rules of Method; and a priori deduction are mandatory. The trouble these students are having is primarily because they've been taught by rote(authority and dynamics based in Marxism), instead of by rational first principles. Its infected most publicly funded education. In all fairness, I don't think more time with an 'expert' would fill those gaps, I've personally observed several contradictions where the supposed expert fails to perform as a result of incentives. Most teachers at that level aren't actually experts. They have their lesson plans, but the moment a problem comes up outside of that (such as when the salt the earth/burning bridges strategy is used between Algebra->Geometry->Trigonometry courses), they'll just enforce a struggle session making the student suffer so unimaginably that they succumb and believe that they simply are not good at math. The student as a result of that torture (yes it is that) gets PTSD which few ever recover from. The structure is by systemic design since math is used to gatekeep all hard science and technology. If you can't understand Math, you won't be able to follow any of the subsequent lessons that use it as the primary tool to impart knowledge (eschewing intuitive or deductive understandings or relationships as was previously done pre-1970s).

kurikuri 2y ago
> In all fairness, I don't think more time with an 'expert' would fill those gaps, I've personally observed several contradictions where the supposed expert fails to perform as a result of incentives. Or, as a result of objectives? If the ‘expert’ in this regard knows the material well enough, then the objective and constraints seem relevant. When you are referring to an expert, what is the context? An expert teacher for a class maintains different skill set from an expert tutor. One on one time with an expert tutor does help tremendously, but realistic goals have to be determined. I made my way through undergrad and grad school as a private tutor for math from elementary school to math majors. The student’s objective, time scale, and current state determine how thorough a tutor can be. >The trouble these students are having is primarily because they've been taught by rote(authority and dynamics based in Marxism), instead of by rational first principles. It’s infected most publicly funded education. Yes, but the Marxism aside makes little sense here. Crudely quantifying education outcomes into metrics and making the teachers responsible to said metrics is a primary reason for rote learning (i.e., teaching to the test). The ideas which inspire this type of metricizing come from Taylorism and Fordism, both of which are American schools of thought.

kurikuri 2y ago

> In all fairness, I don't think more time with an 'expert' would fill those gaps, I've personally observed several contradictions where the supposed expert fails to perform as a result of incentives. Or, as a result of objectives? If the ‘expert’ in this regard knows the material well enough, then the objective and constraints seem relevant. When you are referring to an expert, what is the context? An expert teacher for a class maintains different skill set from an expert tutor. One on one time with an expert tutor does help tremendously, but realistic goals have to be determined. I made my way through undergrad and grad school as a private tutor for math from elementary school to math majors. The student’s objective, time scale, and current state determine how thorough a tutor can be. >The trouble these students are having is primarily because they've been taught by rote(authority and dynamics based in Marxism), instead of by rational first principles. It’s infected most publicly funded education. Yes, but the Marxism aside makes little sense here. Crudely quantifying education outcomes into metrics and making the teachers responsible to said metrics is a primary reason for rote learning (i.e., teaching to the test). The ideas which inspire this type of metricizing come from Taylorism and Fordism, both of which are American schools of thought.