02 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere should be categories of recs, humor, brilliancy, insightful, and
If I recall correctly, that was one of darvlay's incredibly foul but clever one-liners, accummulating over 20 recs. I wish I remembered the particulars.
EDIT: I just remembered it. It was the comparison between no1 and one of darvlay's body parts in the Seance thread. I'm too much of a gentleman to repeat it.
so on.
Kelly
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by WulebgrThis is a very interesting statement.
If the teacher does no more than teach facts, I want her fired. Facts are the tip of the iceberg of knowledge. Students must be guided towards an understanding of the foundation of all facts.
Consider the way in which the vast majority of secondary school education
is examined: tests. These tests, by and large, test a student's ability to
regurgitate facts: What date was Lincoln shot? What's the atomic weight
of cesium? Which character killed Caesar in Shakespeare's play?
I can remember very vividly my high school education, which, predominantly
was about 'fact acquisition.' It wasn't until senior year that a few courses
taught me about how to think. That is, rather than knowing a series of
dates in the civil war, to think about the reasons for it -- why the South did X,
what the North did in response, who was writing what and why, how the various
economies stood to benefit and suffer, and so on.
If your standard is that a teacher should teach more than facts, then I would
argue (with you) that most teachers should be fired for incompetence.
But, then again, they were never taught how to understand the broader
foundations that you make reference to. And, for 25k a year, what do you
want, anyway?
That having been said, how often in the average person's life are they required
to apply that broader sort of education? Given that many people do not do that,
I'd say it must not be that often.
So, I'm not so sure. I mean, I agree with your idealistic post (being an idealist
myself), but I'm not sure such idealism really is necessary (although it is certainly
desirable). I mean, I really, really, reeeeeeeealy want to think that people should
have a strong foundation in methodology, hermeutics, and critical thinking, but,
truth be told, they seem to be utterly unnecessary.
The phrase 'ignorance is bliss' has some merit. To quote Wolf Larsen in 'The Sea
Wolf' (Jack London) -- And [my brother] is all the happier for leaving life alone. He
is too busy living it to think about it. My mistake was in ever opening the books.
Nemesio
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioWow, this is sort of amazing. I was having a discussion at work on
This is a very interesting statement.
Consider the way in which the vast majority of secondary school education
is examined: tests. These tests, by and large, test a student's ability to
regurgitate facts: What date was Lincoln shot? What's the atomic weight
of cesium? Which character killed Caesar in Shakespeare's play?
I can remember very ...[text shortened]... s too busy living it to think about it. My mistake was in ever opening the books.[/i]
Nemesio
this very topic just a couple of hours ago. We basically said the same
thing too. I used chess as an example, you can know the moves,
and be able to make them, but to understand the game, is
something completely different.
Kelly
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLMAO.
Speaking of offensive threads, harken back one year to the Times of Trouble, then examine the second entry in the current list of Recommended Posts. My, how times have changed.
I note I'm tied with the dump post.
That is so sad......
Ivanhoe? Is the forum better or worse than a year ago and, more importantly,
is it Cribs's fault?
Nemesio
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioI'm all for blaming Cribs, now that doesn't mean it is his fault
LMAO.
I note I'm tied with the dump post.
That is so sad......
Ivanhoe? Is the forum better or worse than a year ago and, more importantly,
is it Cribs's fault?
Nemesio
mind you, just the object of blame. 🙂
Kelly
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayBut I'm truly torn on the issue.
Wow, this is sort of amazing. I was having a discussion at work on
this very topic just a couple of hours ago. We basically said the same
thing too. I used chess as an example, you can know the moves,
and be able to make them, but to understand the game, is
something completely different.
Kelly
I mean, how many jobs require you to 'think outside the box?'
Not many. Most bosses are happy if you just do what you're asked.
Creativity is not really a pre-requisite, just a nice bonus.
For example, in the church I work for, we have a 3-year Lectionary
cycle (that is, every three years, the readings and prayers are repeated
almost identically). I could, very legitimately, work out a 156-week
hymn list and never have to do that job again (it doesn't quite work
that way, but this is just a hypothetical). But how creative is that?
How sensitive to the needs of the congregation is that? How can I react
to events in the world, or develop and foster hymn singing, or introduce
new things?
The choir, for example, would 'sound' much better if I never taught them
anything (because new things are weaker than learned things). But how
would that serve them and the parishioners?
The music could all be played on the same registration (sound) on the
organ. But how does that reflect the poetry of the hymn text?
I could give dozens of examples, but I think you get the picture. I would
be completely within the bounds of my contract to 'coast' without any
consideration of the lives that I have the capacity to touch. And, indeed,
the congregation has no clue how many or how few pains I go through on
a week-to-week, service-to-service basis.
And I'm here to tell you, that 85% of my colleagues either can't or are too
lazy to be creative in their work, but they all have jobs. And, experience
tells me that other professions are more or less like this, with people, showing
up to work, doing precisely what is required of them, and punching out at 5 on
the dot.
So, I really don't know: should educators really train people for such a skill
as 'creative/analytic thinking' when it is so clearly not prized? Would doing
such a thing really be excessive, given it is not a requirement of most jobs?
Nemesio
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioIf I may have the pulpit and make another observation to the choir...
Consider the way in which the vast majority of secondary school education
is examined: tests. These tests, by and large, test a student's ability to
regurgitate facts: What date was Lincoln shot? What's the atomic weight
of cesium? Which character killed Caesar in Shakespeare's play?
Might it be the case that via this methodology, we are teaching children a foundation of acquiring knowledge: accepting what authorities tell them to be fact. Futher, might we be teaching them that knowledge is only valuable as a token to appease authorities who demand it?
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis (true) observation makes me weep.
Might it be the case that via this methodology, we are teaching children a foundation of acquiring knowledge: accepting what authorities tell them to be fact. Futher, might we be teaching them that knowledge is only valuable as a token to appease authorities who demand it?
I couldn't be more befuddled on this issue.
Nemesio
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioI don't care if they can think outside the box, I simply want them to have the ability to measure the box for themselves.
But I'm truly torn on the issue.
I mean, how many jobs require you to 'think outside the box?'
Not many. Most bosses are happy if you just do what you're asked.
Creativity is not really a pre-requisite, just a nice bonus.
For example, in the church I work for, we have a 3-year Lectionary
cycle (that is, every three years, the readings an ...[text shortened]... doing
such a thing really be excessive, given it is not a requirement of most jobs?
Nemesio
I was an idealistic educator many years ago. I have become less idealistic, and less cynical in recent years. Most teachers do struggle to teach kids the methods as well as the results. The problems in our schools stem from all the other needs that detract from instruction time, and from the fact that growing numbers of teachers lack true mastery of the subjects they teach. This absence of mastery grows mostly out of hiring processes that disfavor academic excellence.
Consider Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Teachers are more likely hired when they excell at intrapersonal and interpersonal than when they excell at linguistic and logical-mathematical. The latter two are more commonly measured by so-called intelligence tests, but they are not necessarily the most important for success in life.
The best teachers have capacities in several areas, and the best schools have faculties with a diversity of capabilities. Currently, in the USA, schools are skewed away from the traditional measures in the composition of their faculties.
02 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672No It doesn't.
Okay. Then you just demolished one of the central tenets of Christian philosophy - free will.
Edit: I know you think the Bible Contradicts it self but it doesnt. You have to truly understand it, and the only way is by the grace of God that you will understand it.
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672The ways of GOD are beyond human understanding. You will not understand this unless you read the WOOD OF GOD and PREY.
"It is up to God to change them..."
That's what you said. If God changes someone then He destroys that individual's free will. You can't make a choice for somebody and then claim it was their choice.