|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 05/23/2007 : 08:37:21 [Permalink]
|
| But is it the fault of the schools-- some giant conspiracy?-- or are other myriad cultural and social factors at play? |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 09:18:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave---Mathematics is
the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations |
No, math isn't a science at all. Science uses math, but math isn't science.| It is a tool to measure the universe. |
No, science is a tool to measure the universe. Math is just the language in which many of those measurements are written.| It is also a tool of thought training. |
As are all formal logics, but they're the ultimate expression of rigirously "boxed in" thought. In math, things are either correct or they're not. There is no in-between, no flexibility allowed where a creative solution might be considered better than a correct solution. Math is at the acme of what you consider to be the wrong way to teach.| No Dave I have never attended college, if fact I never graduated high school. |
So this time, you're not angry at what "they" did to you.| If you would like to discount my arguments based on these facts... |
Only a child would do so.| ...keep in mind I have achieved most of the current socially accepted goals of success well beyond the average. |
And yet, you seem unable to engage in an honest discussion here in these forums.| I am also offended by the question. |
Why? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 14:07:40 [Permalink]
|
Oh, boy. I'm not sure why I even bother, but here goes: Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave---Most college students come from public school. Lacking in general education pigeon holes a student into a direction (pushing this button only). This is to my point. |
That wasn't your original point. You first said that "Compulsory government education" is the problem, now you're saying the problem is that students are "lacking in general education." Interesting. REMEDIAL
1 : intended as a remedy
2 : concerned with the correction of faulty study habits and the raising of a pupil's general competence |
Though I appreciate your willingness to tell us the definition of "remedial," I don't think it's entirely necessary. Since you brought it up, though, in what dictionary does this definition reside? A quick look at dictionary.com does not provide your definition 2 (although it does suggest it). "of the 12 California state university colleges, 60% of students need remediation; a Florida study showed at least 70% of recent high school graduates need remedial courses when they enter community college"
USA Today, pg. 14A, November 24, 1997 |
Mind showing us what studies these were? I hope you understand, but USA Today is not really known as the most reliable source of statical data. I already provided you with a link to an explanation of common polling errors, but I suppose I can do it again. I am sure you will understand if I have many questions about those numbers. Link adjusted by B10
"About three-quarters (78 percent) of higher education institutions that enrolled freshmen offered at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course in fall 1995" |
First of all, the number of schools offering remedial courses has little bearing on your stated point. There are so many other factors to consider there, and the data is so far removed from your point as to be almost worthless. I see that marfknox has already given you at least one good explanation for this bit of data.
Second, it looks like you are telling me that 22% of all "higher education institutions that enrolled freshmen" offered absolutely no remedial courses in reading, writing, or mathematics in Fall 1995.
Third, this begs the questions:
- What do they mean by "higher education institutions"
- How do they define a "remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course?"
- How does this data compare to historical trends?
| The evidence suggests that public schools do a very poor job of teaching math, reading, and writing. These |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 14:29:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cuneiformist---Thank you for your response.
Math is as much about training the mind to think as it is learning how to measure the universe.
My point is that only half the reason for math is being taught. |
It is fortunate you think this way, because you are only half right about the purpose of math. | The half that is taught is the half that measures. |
I am confident that both Ricky and I are far more qualified to determine both the reason for math and how math is taught than nearly everybody else on this board. I am also fairly confident that Ricky would agree with me when I say that you are completely wrong about how math is taught. Do you feel somehow slighted by the public school system? Do you think the public school education you received was unsatisfactory in the manner you are discussing? If so, you are by no means in the majority. Science books: "explain science concepts with little or no discussion of how these were determined"
Thus allowing thought about a concept with the allowance to discover its meaning and application.
Not telling the meaning and application.
Do you not see that telling the application and meaning puts a box on the concept? |
I believe I have addressed this in my prior post. "give lots of little experiments to perform, but provide no assistance on drawing accurate conclusions from the data"
Again a predetermined conclusion puts a box around the experiment and thought process. |
Emphasis mine -- B10
Where in the world did you get this idea? First of all, a fundamental part of science is attempting to obtain a "predetermined conclusion" with your experiments; you know, getting a predictive theory. Once again, part of the scientific method. Second, why do you think I was implying either book gave a predetermined conclusion? Kil---
With this you imply all concepts immovable. |
I hate to be the one to break it to you, JEROME DA GNOME, but that is nowhere near Kil's implication. In fact, you might want to try reading his signature quote sometime. If you teach what it is and what it means, there is little room for discovery of new.
You certainly can find many examples of concepts that have proven false ; but what if those concepts were demanded true on a wide scale from youth, would we have the discoveries of today.
Truth in application and meaning will be discovered; it does not need to be demanded.
Potential new discoveries will be lost with the telling (not discovering) of application and meaning.
What if the concept of six days of creation were demanded true from youth and there was no allowance for THINKING about the concept? |
The rest of this argument has been more than adequately addressed by those above. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 18:24:21 [Permalink]
|
| Approximately 155 million adults out of 191 million do not have or are at the skill that should be learned by the age of 10 years. |
Yes, I caught that you are arguing that our education system currently is not satisfactory, and is in fact less satisfactory than it has been in the past. But as Cune said: | But is it the fault of the schools-- some giant conspiracy?-- or are other myriad cultural and social factors at play? |
You used that argument about remedial classes in college, but have yet to acknowledge my argument that one of the obvious reasons for that is that more people are going to college driven by economic necessity.
Look, if a lot of Americans are button-pressing, non-thinking masses, it has a hell of a lot more to do with commercial culture and economic drives than it does with some contrived conspiracy for which there is no evidence, only bad speculation.
Here's a direct question: What is your proposed solution? What sort of education system or systems would you implement if you were in charge of all American education? I only ask this because this whole argument of yours smacks of someone who likes to bitch about all the obvious problems with a system but doesn't do a damn thing to improve anything except dream up some utopian la-la land solution.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/23/2007 18:25:09 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 18:49:28 [Permalink]
|
I am just amazed.
Dave I gave you the Webster dictionary definition of math, and you said it was wrong.
I am glad to know that your perception of words trumps Websters dictionary.
Dave you said math was not a tool in the same sentence you said math is language; in case you did not know language is a tool.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for these debates as it allows me to research and expand my own knowledge which I enjoy very much.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 19:11:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I am just amazed.
Dave I gave you the Webster dictionary definition of math, and you said it was wrong.
I am glad to know that your perception of words trumps Websters dictionary. |
Dictionaries provide current usage. That usage is incorrect. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. This is why your "argumetum ad Webster's" will always fail.
I also note that you have now confessed to plagiarism.| Dave you said math was not a tool in the same sentence you said math is language; in case you did not know language is a tool. |
You are simply misrepresenting what I said.| I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for these debates as it allows me to research and expand my own knowledge which I enjoy very much. |
Pity you can't be honest about it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 21:12:28 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox---
I will absolutely acknowledge that a larger group widens the probability of lesser students going to higher education. Although I would argue the point of economic necessity. Those student loans can and do in many cases overreach the extra starting income of the worker.
The evidence of an intention to create a society of consuming button pushers will be forthcoming now that we have established that currently as a society we are far underachieving in respect to literacy.
I propose no solution and I am not complaining; this to me is a discussion of current and historical realities. If I must give an answer I would choose all private schooling. Certainly if communities would like to pull recourses for the action of funding a local school I find no problem this.
What is a vital need of any society? Food production is essential. History has taught us public production on a mass scale of food for a society leaves the population hungry. My contention is that public production on a mass scale of education has left the population illiterate.
Ultimately, I do believe left to their own devices, man will on an individual base choose well for himself and his fellow man.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 03:49:51 [Permalink]
|
| Although I would argue the point of economic necessity. Those student loans can and do in many cases overreach the extra starting income of the worker. |
All statistics and studies show that - for whatever reason - people with college degrees make considerably more money than people without them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States | The biggest income difference was between those with some college education and those who had a Bachelor's degree, with the latter making $23,874 more. |
Even if your college loans "overreach" your starting income, you can defer payment without penalty until you make a decent income, and your are much more likely to get a considerably higher paying job. We are not yet to the point where student loans cost more than they yield in financial benefits. (Although we might get to that point with the rising costs of college and dwindling financial aid.)
| Ultimately, I do believe left to their own devices, man will on an individual base choose well for himself and his fellow man. |
What the hell does that mean? Think about what you are saying for just one minute - human beings are social creatures. We cannot survive entirely on our own, nor does any single human being rely entirely on themselves for a complete sense of identity and self worth. That is simply not in our nature. Given that simple reality, even in an anarchist state, there will exist social norms, real consequences for breaking them, acceptable and unacceptable social and family structures, division of labor and a change in concepts of identity and sense of worth that come along with those divisions. It is so fucking arbitrary to say that a form of society which involves a formal government (or even more arbitrary, that some aspects of formal government) are now preventing mankind from being "left to his own devices". America is not North Korea. People have a hell of a lot more choices and freedom here than in most indigenous societies where there is no formal government but very strict social norms and social consequences for breaking those norms.
Stop living in la la land and realize that life ain't all that simple. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 12:25:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
This isn't exactly correct. A proof of a proposition can lead in a certain direction and show insight in another (albeit similar) problem. Another proof of the same proposition may not. In such a case, the former is typically considered "better". |
I was thinking of things like robotics competitions or egg drops wherein a suboptimal or even "that shouldn't work" solution to a problem can gain a team extra points for creativity and/or "thinking outside the box." Such "artistry" isn't going to help a person pass a math final if his/her answers are simply incorrect. "Well, that's some very creative algebra you've used here, but you got 17.4 when the correct answer is -2. Putting smiles on all your zeros was a nice touch, too, but still I had to give you an F."
If an incorrect mathematical proof happens to contain some insight into a similar problem, that doesn't make the proof itself (which was the goal) any more correct. And if the proof is fundamentally flawed (in that the author got a sign wrong or something else simple) early in the work, then unless those special insights abound, most of the rest of the proof would simply be a gigantic waste of time. As in, "as soon as I saw that glaring mistake in equation 2, why would I keep reading?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 14:42:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
No Dave I have never attended college, if fact I never graduated high school. |
That explains quite a lot...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 18:06:31 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse wrote: | That explains quite a lot... |
That's a low blow, Mab. Plenty of people without much formal education have been brilliant minds and have been well self-educated. Now I am no more impressed with Jerome's arguments and reasoning on this discussion than anyone else, but to say that his lack of formal education explain anything is quite inappropriate and offensive.
My grandfather - who only had a HS education - was one of the brightest people in my family because he was curious about the world and read the newspaper every day. And just look at Penn Jillette. I don't agree with a lot of what the guy says, but no one can argue that he isn't well educated and in many ways quite brilliant. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 18:20:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
No Dave I have never attended college, if fact I never graduated high school. |
That explains quite a lot...
|
You know what? I don't think so. But you do have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, based on the knowledge you do have. Critical thinking does not depend on the level of schooling you have had. Sure it helps, but good old common sense, if used, goes a long way toward thinking critically.
I know too many people with advanced degrees buying homeopathics, including one of my brothers, to conclude anything solid about critical thinking and schooling, unless the degree is in a science.
Unfortunately for Jerome, critical thinking does not appear to be one of his strong suits.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 19:11:20 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox, I took your challenge on the different income levels with the examples you cited. You are correct that there is an advantage, but not near as large as the gross numbers suggest. All other things being equal I took two married couples with no children and a $2000 per month mortgage, one set completing college with Bachelor's degrees and one set with some college education.
1. $45,854 gross income less $6,354 payroll taxes leaves $39,500 per year take home pay.
2. $68,728 gross income less $12,728 payroll taxes leaves $56,000 per year
This is a difference in take home pay of $16,500 per year.
The family not going to college worked and earned money for 4 years while the family that went to college incurred a debt of $19,000 plus $7,000 in interest payments (average student loan).
Family number one is in economic terms $184,000 ahead of family two before family two begins to work.
It will take approximately 11 years for family two to become equal in lifetime earning to family one.
From the ages of 36 years to 60 years family two will earn $396,000 more than family one.
Over a lifetime of work $396,000 equals $9,900 per year or $825 per month or $191.86 per week or $4.80 per hour assuming a forty hour work week.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Compulsory Government Education
Topic Locked
