Xref: utzoo comp.edu:1652 sci.math:5223 sci.physics:5292
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Student preparedness (you know...)
Message-ID: <15954@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 88 06:46:39 GMT
Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante)
Organization: malkaryotic
Lines: 25

It appears I overstated my feelings, and (so far) two people have picked
up on the throwaway and ignored my real thesis.

I certainly do not advocate ignoring bright children.  By all means
give them the best teaching possible.  (I can even speak from
experience; I had both extremes in grade school and high school, and I
like the good teaching a lot more.)

But the not-so-bright child IS _NOT_ DEAD WOOD!!!!!  Quite aside from
the ethical implications of branding somebody at such an early stage,
what I was trying to say was that we harm ourselves, as a (technological)
society, by ignoring and trashing these people with such an attitude.  

I heartily agree that different kinds of teaching are required for
different kinds of students.  But when you call someone "deadwood" you
imply that the appropriate teaching for this student is nothing more
than daycare.  When such a student is treated this way, you end up with
an adult that will always need daycare.

U.S. industry isn't suffering because its scientists are second-rate --
it's in trouble because its blue-collar workers can't keep up with the
technology they should be using.
-- 
--  bob, mon	(bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
--  RAMontante,  Computer Science Dept.,  Indiana University,  Bloomington
--	"In this position, the skier is flying in a complete stall..."