3 ms·

A 300-word answer isn't 20x more intelligent than a 15-word one. I think Walter said all that needs to be said, and more economically than you did.

tsimionescu 2y ago
Walter's comment could be applied exactly as well to an argument that there shouldn't be electricity in schools (after all, kids survived without electricity just fine for decades).
- eimrine 2y ago
  The talk is about having a client for tiktok but with ability to phone - on your Math lesson. When the phone used to have no tiktok the situation is tolerable even if the phone rings occationally. Now the tiktok client successfully competes with teacher for kids' attention and some dumbheads are shouting - "Look, the tiktok client still can phone police/firefighters/parents! What else are you going to prohibit, maybe a paper?"
- vkou 2y ago
  If 99.9% of what electricity was used for in a class for was a distraction, this might be a reasonable argument. It's not, though. But I'd wager that 99.9% of cellphone use during class is.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Then they needed to make THAT argument. They did not, argument was lazy "it did not existed in the past, so" thing.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      Maybe Walter thought you were smart enough to fill in the gaps and think for yourself. Guess he was wrong.
      - watwut 2y ago
        You mean, make my own entirely different argument? Passive aggressive dig is not an argument either. No, what Walter wrote what what he wanted to say. However, since you agree with the conclusion, you will defend the argument even if it is not too good.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  I guess he thought you were smart enough to not need everything spelled out for you. His mistake.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  I've made the comment before that all the schools really need is a classroom, desks and chairs, a chalkboard, and a teacher. Pen & notepaper helps. The rest is just useless fluff. Note that Caltech was exactly that. A prof, a chalkboard, a lecture hall. I learned more in 2 weeks with that than a year of high school. I've suggested to college students that they'll learn better if they leave their laptops in the dorm. And I say this as a computer professional.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    You need much more than that for a good education. While I do agree that smart devices are not necessary, you still need a lot of extra materials for most subjects. You need various kinds of maps for geography and history, you need many images of animals and plants for biology, you need teaching manuals for every subject, you need various books for literature to read poems and prose, you need various materials for arts and crafts. Not to mention when you get to advanced subjects you need a heck of a lot more, at least for practice. Having many of these materials in a digital format on a smart device can help a lot in terms of cost and availability. It's not critical, and I very much understand the downsides of having an always-connected device that kids are used to play with, but it's also not at all 0 cost to go entirely to paper. I'm sure your time in math classes at Caltech that were only chalkboard and notes was extremely productive. But some lectures require more materials (you can't have a good lecture on Alexander's conquests without a map of what he actually conquered), and a full education requires much more than lectures. You're not going to be a good EE student if you can't model a circuit in Spice or draw one in some *CAD.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > You need much more than that for a good education. No, not really. At Caltech, about half had a textbook, but the textbook was not referred to during lecture, and what was taught tended to diverge from the textbook. > maps The prof would freehand the salient aspects of a map and any other drawings required. > literature I never took any literature classes, as I saw no value in them. Even so, I cannot see the utility of a textbook during class. > You're not going to be a good EE student if you can't model a circuit in Spice or draw one in some *CAD. I had to laugh. None of that was available in the 70s. I drew circuits freehand on paper. OMG. There were labs available for students building circuits, where the rubber really met the road. I was not majoring in EE, I just enjoyed the classes. But the EEs Caltech turned out were all first class engineers. Taught by lectures with a blackboard and chalk. Quantum physics was taught the same way. Not even a textbook. The engineering work I did on the 757 was pen and paper, with a calculator as a crutch. The most damning evidence against all these materials is that there is zero evidence of any improvement in K-12 results in the last 50 years, and things just seem to be getting worse. > you need teaching manuals for every subject Only for teachers who don't know the material.
GuB-42 2y ago
That "How ever did anyone survive before" answer means absolutely nothing. Yes, we survived the 1990s, if we didn't we wouldn't be there to talk about it, thank you Captain Obvious. I know, I know, this is sarcasm, but where is the argument? If anything, it is a textbook example of the "appeal to tradition" fallacy. There are many good arguments against smartphones in classrooms, that one isn't. For the details, see xoa's answer.

tsimionescu 2y ago

Walter's comment could be applied exactly as well to an argument that there shouldn't be electricity in schools (after all, kids survived without electricity just fine for decades).

eimrine 2y ago
The talk is about having a client for tiktok but with ability to phone - on your Math lesson. When the phone used to have no tiktok the situation is tolerable even if the phone rings occationally. Now the tiktok client successfully competes with teacher for kids' attention and some dumbheads are shouting - "Look, the tiktok client still can phone police/firefighters/parents! What else are you going to prohibit, maybe a paper?"
vkou 2y ago
If 99.9% of what electricity was used for in a class for was a distraction, this might be a reasonable argument. It's not, though. But I'd wager that 99.9% of cellphone use during class is.
- watwut 2y ago
  Then they needed to make THAT argument. They did not, argument was lazy "it did not existed in the past, so" thing.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    Maybe Walter thought you were smart enough to fill in the gaps and think for yourself. Guess he was wrong.
    - watwut 2y ago
      You mean, make my own entirely different argument? Passive aggressive dig is not an argument either. No, what Walter wrote what what he wanted to say. However, since you agree with the conclusion, you will defend the argument even if it is not too good.
AlbertCory 2y ago
I guess he thought you were smart enough to not need everything spelled out for you. His mistake.
WalterBright 2y ago
I've made the comment before that all the schools really need is a classroom, desks and chairs, a chalkboard, and a teacher. Pen & notepaper helps. The rest is just useless fluff. Note that Caltech was exactly that. A prof, a chalkboard, a lecture hall. I learned more in 2 weeks with that than a year of high school. I've suggested to college students that they'll learn better if they leave their laptops in the dorm. And I say this as a computer professional.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  You need much more than that for a good education. While I do agree that smart devices are not necessary, you still need a lot of extra materials for most subjects. You need various kinds of maps for geography and history, you need many images of animals and plants for biology, you need teaching manuals for every subject, you need various books for literature to read poems and prose, you need various materials for arts and crafts. Not to mention when you get to advanced subjects you need a heck of a lot more, at least for practice. Having many of these materials in a digital format on a smart device can help a lot in terms of cost and availability. It's not critical, and I very much understand the downsides of having an always-connected device that kids are used to play with, but it's also not at all 0 cost to go entirely to paper. I'm sure your time in math classes at Caltech that were only chalkboard and notes was extremely productive. But some lectures require more materials (you can't have a good lecture on Alexander's conquests without a map of what he actually conquered), and a full education requires much more than lectures. You're not going to be a good EE student if you can't model a circuit in Spice or draw one in some *CAD.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > You need much more than that for a good education. No, not really. At Caltech, about half had a textbook, but the textbook was not referred to during lecture, and what was taught tended to diverge from the textbook. > maps The prof would freehand the salient aspects of a map and any other drawings required. > literature I never took any literature classes, as I saw no value in them. Even so, I cannot see the utility of a textbook during class. > You're not going to be a good EE student if you can't model a circuit in Spice or draw one in some *CAD. I had to laugh. None of that was available in the 70s. I drew circuits freehand on paper. OMG. There were labs available for students building circuits, where the rubber really met the road. I was not majoring in EE, I just enjoyed the classes. But the EEs Caltech turned out were all first class engineers. Taught by lectures with a blackboard and chalk. Quantum physics was taught the same way. Not even a textbook. The engineering work I did on the 757 was pen and paper, with a calculator as a crutch. The most damning evidence against all these materials is that there is zero evidence of any improvement in K-12 results in the last 50 years, and things just seem to be getting worse. > you need teaching manuals for every subject Only for teachers who don't know the material.

GuB-42 2y ago

That "How ever did anyone survive before" answer means absolutely nothing. Yes, we survived the 1990s, if we didn't we wouldn't be there to talk about it, thank you Captain Obvious. I know, I know, this is sarcasm, but where is the argument? If anything, it is a textbook example of the "appeal to tradition" fallacy. There are many good arguments against smartphones in classrooms, that one isn't. For the details, see xoa's answer.