Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder From: byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: CS education Summary: I've heard all this before. Message-ID: <462@smcnet.UUCP> Date: 20 Dec 89 05:30:49 GMT References: <479@intelisc.nosun.UUCP> <7474@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1989Dec18.042005.19231@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> Organization: Santa Monica College Telecom, Santa Monica, CA. Lines: 219 In article <1989Dec18.042005.19231@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu>, bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: > In article <7474@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: > | From snidely@nosun.UUCP (David Schneider): > | > Most students consider themselves incarcerated, and aren't > | > willing to make it easy for teachers to teach. > | > | And leading to low efficiency in the educational system; by making > ~~~~~~~~~~ > I guess we just aren't cranking out those degrees fast enough. We > want more degrees for lower effort. Should I take your criticism as advocacy of _inefficient_ education? In the original context David was talking about students who are taught the same material ten times even though they understood it the first time. The most frustrating example of this in my experience was in the study of english. As I remember, I felt like a captive being force-fed the same material every year from 4th grade to college (where I was fortunate enough to test out of further rehashing of the same material). Just think of how much additional material I could have covered in that time! What a waste. > | education truly free, in the sense that one can pursue education > | according to one's own interests > > But everyone is sure to pursue their own interests, anyway. They can't if they are in a straightjacket curriculum and can't choose an alternate school. Don't get me wrong on the issue of loose vs. tight curricular requirements. I think that if anything, today's curricula are too lenient in that they don't REALLY require students to learn anything. (If you don't believe that, I have a few million illiterates with diplomas I'd like to introduce you to :-) The problem is that the limits to fast advancement are a brick wall ("You CAN'T learn algebra in 5th grade, it'll melt your brain.") while slower students are not REQUIRED to learn the material that they are taught. The result of this is that a student can't get an adequate education at school and he can't change schools (unless his parents are pretty rich and there's a GOOD school nearby. I believe that there are very few students really getting a good education these days. Do you call that pursuing interests? [Stuff Deleted for brevity] > How is an ignorant person supposed to have cultivated interests > in "irrelevant" subjects without being exposed to those subjects? Considering that the current system doesn't even teach students to read and write reliably, I can hardly conclude that it is very effective in training students to have cultivated tastes. > | (limited only by the need to satisfy > | an absolutely minimal set of prerequisites), > > Ah, yes, we don't want any of those foolish _breadth_ requirements, > now do we? How does repeating material that has already been learned contribute to the ability, attention span, and classroom time available for other non-basic coursework? Perhaps the reason that after 13 years of education a large percentage of college freshmen can't compute with fractions or write a complete sentence is that they were never required to do so? Could that be? Until teachers get the guts to REQUIRE students to learn material before passing them along, having a broad curriculum will do as much good as pouring EXPENSIVE wine into a glass with a hole in the bottom. > But, wait, there's more! Why bother with those silly > prerequisites? Heck, people should be able to take anything > they want. How can you justify having some teacher decide > what previous work is to be required before taking a class? The way things work these days, students are not assumed to know anything much before the class anyway (if that was the expectation, why is there so much repeated material?). I would suggest that some kind of "advanced placement" tests would serve as perfect prerequisites for higher level classes (with only scores of 90% allowing entry). Just think, maybe we could require students who had taken the prerequisite classes to take those tests too. If they didn't make the grade, what would this indicate to you? > You will probably want the job of ensuring that only _really_ > necessary courses are prescribed; we don't want those poor > oppressed students to actually learn anything that isn't absolutely > necessary for their exact job that they will get upon graduation. I don't recall getting the impression that the initial posting implied the sort of situation I have often seen wherein curricular requirements were relaxed and students became lazy and took lots of mickey-mouse classes. Presently, we don't teach students much about the basics, job-oriented areas, or cultural areas. Just ask the typical high school senior who Napoleon was, what three fifths of 15 is, or what job he wants to get when he graduates (there's a chance of his actually answering that one). > | But surely (heavy sarcasm) this could not compare with the thrill > | of force-feeding irrelevant material to a captive audience which > | really doesn't give a damn, right??? > > Students (based on their limited life experiences) cannot see the > relevance of the material. That is a comment I heard all through my education and it's as much garbage as it was then. When a student says that he knows a set of material (in some cases students have a better understanding of the material that their teachers) he ought to be provided with an opportunity to prove it and be allowed to move on to more challenging work. In practice, on those rare occasions when students can escape from the boredom of repeated material, there's nowhere for him to go (heaven forbid he should be allowed into the higher-level class, then we'll have the same problem again next year...better put the little trouble-maker on ice until the other kids can catch up! :-). Students DO know when they are bored. Telling a bored student that he's not bored seems to be pretty presumptious even for a professional educator. > What a surprise! The surprise is that we > should put the "inmates in charge of the asylum" and have the admittedly > ignorant students decide what the relevant material _is_. Who admitted that students are ignorant about what they know? Should they not be given an opportunity to show whether or not they are ready to progress and meet appropriate objectives and move on? How can we deny the opportunity for slower students to also demonstrate their level of understanding so as to not be pushed along into work they are not ready for? Isn't this lack of objective evaluation criteria why we have so many students who are either pushed hrough each grade without learning anything or restricted from reaching their full potential? > I am almost > willing to agree that they at least shouldn't be "captive" audiences. That's an odd reaction...if they are not learning, then it's the student's problem...if they don't like what we are dishing up, let 'em hit the road. It's about time that the educational establishment take some responsibility for allowing students to fail by not failing them. Schools that pass students on to higher grades/graduation without application of standards are to blame when those students are unable to function. I don't like the idea of abandoning students like that (unless they are criminals of course). My impression was that most of the educationists out there resisted the idea of "writing off" poor students. I hope that opinion isn't representative of the conventional wisdom of the educational establishment these days. > That would be no problem if they would not have to be supported by > the people who had the responsibility and self-discipline as young > adults to learn the "irrelevant" material. > > | After all, what could possibly > | lead us to believe that students treated this way will conclude that > | education is completely worthless and decide to seek the more obvious > | material benefits of selling crack instead?? > > After all, we all know that the only reason for pursuing an education > is to make more money. In which case the student cannot _possibly_ > learn anything that will make him more money than selling crack, so > the student shouldn't bother going to school, anyway. 1. As I read it, the original posting was talking about learning ANY material, not just job-oriented material. 2. There's nothing wrong with wanting to learn a subject in depth (job- related or not) except that it might require some adequate teacher preparation. My gut reaction is that this is the REAL reason for resistance to studying subjects in depth. 3. Students who are bored out of their minds can have their attention pulled away by anything, not just drugs or (Gasp!) material benefits or (Horrors!) plans for a future career. I'm not talking about adding classes in Rap music and creative skate-boarding. I'm talking about trying to teach students REAL information. Since when are students required to read a REAL book? (ie. not a text book) I can't remember ever being required to read an interesting book in all of my educational years. Fortunately, I happened to love reading (I still do) and found lots of interesting material on my own. > | How could we reasonably > | believe that by totally disregarding their interests and forcing them > | to study wars of the 17th century, we could be seeing to it that they > | seek out drugs as an escape mechanism??? > > If a student "seeks out drugs as an escape mechanism" because they > are forced to (gasp!) actually read (that's right -- read) an actual > book that they wouldn't actually _buy_ because it doesn't fit within > the narrow confines of their "interests" then such a person should > seek professional help. > | No, our educational system > | is doing a FINE job of producing pregnant teenage dropouts who give > | birth to heroin-addicted babies -- why should we change a thing??? > > Our educational system has its problems, but I think that the culture > students _live in_ bears far more blame for the above than the school > where they spend only 30 hours/week. I don't believe that for a minute. That might be an adequate excuse (though certainly not much of a comfort to the people whose lives are miserable because the the 13 years of 30 hours/week they didn't learn to read. At least they have a (worthless) diploma. I grew up in a nice rural area...very little crime, most families were not broken, no big "cultural problems", yet 50% of the graduates were barely literate and only a few could have been considered "educated". I don't think my experiences are isolated instances or a limited problem. Most of the people with whom I discuss this relate similar tales. Will the "educators" ever acknowledge their role in this dirty little secret? I doubt it. That's why changes need to come from the outside. Does anyone honestly expect for the NEA to allow evaluation of the effectiveness of it's members? Not on your life. > Regards, > Will Bralick Brian Yoder -- -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>- | Brian Yoder | answers *byoder(); | | uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers | -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-