Comments on: Imagine All the Learning http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:59:24 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Laelaps http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21154 Laelaps Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:41:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21154 [...] Oh, to be free of biology lab Friday March 30th 2007, 11:41 am Filed under: Rutgers, Idiocy, Community, Education There has beenquite a lively discussion going on lately (see here, here, here, here, here, and here for some of the highlights) over science labs for undergraduates, and being that I’m an undergrad myself (and have 2-3 lab courses every semester) I thought I would weigh in on the subject. [...] [...] Oh, to be free of biology lab Friday March 30th 2007, 11:41 am Filed under: Rutgers, Idiocy, Community, Education There has beenquite a lively discussion going on lately (see here, here, here, here, here, and here for some of the highlights) over science labs for undergraduates, and being that I’m an undergrad myself (and have 2-3 lab courses every semester) I thought I would weigh in on the subject. [...]

]]> By: Kaleberg http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21143 Kaleberg Sun, 22 Oct 2006 04:07:31 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21143 One of the great thing about the US higher educational system is its sheer variety. With so many different kinds of colleges, a student can generally find the kind of education he or she desires. This sounds silly. Isn't there one set of Analects that define higher learning? Isn't there one range or one approach that should work for everyone? I went to MIT and greatly enjoyed the firehose and the freedom. I learned French in my 40s, mainly from comic books and movies, but I would have considered a foreign language requirement when I was trying to learn engineering a painful nuisance. I unwound reading history, but never took a history course. Even at MIT, without a language requirement, I had friends taking French, Russian, German and Mandarin, and I had friends who considered studying history an exercise in masochism. The US system is wonderfully inefficient, massively flexible, and surprisingly capable. It can educate prodigies and late bloomers, scions and pariahs. Like the enzymatic back alleys of a cell, it can compensate for horrendous SAT scores and wretched high schools and still generate an educated graduate. Of course, the quality of the product varies. That's why graduate schools, and employers, wind up grading the college and the individual. Different people mature at different rates. They learn in different ways. Not all of them will succeed in the same way. They require different approaches to higher education. One of the great thing about the US higher educational system is its sheer variety. With so many different kinds of colleges, a student can generally find the kind of education he or she desires. This sounds silly. Isn’t there one set of Analects that define higher learning? Isn’t there one range or one approach that should work for everyone?

I went to MIT and greatly enjoyed the firehose and the freedom. I learned French in my 40s, mainly from comic books and movies, but I would have considered a foreign language requirement when I was trying to learn engineering a painful nuisance. I unwound reading history, but never took a history course. Even at MIT, without a language requirement, I had friends taking French, Russian, German and Mandarin, and I had friends who considered studying history an exercise in masochism.

The US system is wonderfully inefficient, massively flexible, and surprisingly capable. It can educate prodigies and late bloomers, scions and pariahs. Like the enzymatic back alleys of a cell, it can compensate for horrendous SAT scores and wretched high schools and still generate an educated graduate. Of course, the quality of the product varies. That’s why graduate schools, and employers, wind up grading the college and the individual.

Different people mature at different rates. They learn in different ways. Not all of them will succeed in the same way. They require different approaches to higher education.

]]> By: Savyasachi http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21132 Savyasachi Wed, 18 Oct 2006 04:38:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21132 And why can all this not be taught in a *school*, the way it is done (quite successfully) in so many "Third-world" countries? And why can all this not be taught in a *school*, the way it is done (quite successfully) in so many “Third-world” countries?

]]> By: Adam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21131 Adam Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:44:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21131 I was a high school teacher for a year (in the Newark, NJ public school system) and I was shocked when I realized what a well-rounded education high schools attempt to give to their students. With competent teachers, a motivated student can emerge from high school knowing the basics of history, literature, math, and science, which is pretty impressive. That being the case, i my experiance, American, high-school aged kids (myself, at the time, and my peers included) are generally too immature to take advantage of what they're offered, and don't take the classes seriously enough to learn the material in a meaningful way. So high school is wasted on high school kids, and they have to try again in college. Maybe it's a problem with our educational system, maybe with our society, or maybe it's just an age thing. Additionally, I just want to point out that one of the benefits of a required core curriculum is that the courses are actually <em> offered. </em> I probably would have taken more core-type classes if I could have. Professors like to teach more specialized classes, though. I think that's a problem a lot of people have been raising recently. I was a high school teacher for a year (in the Newark, NJ public school system) and I was shocked when I realized what a well-rounded education high schools attempt to give to their students. With competent teachers, a motivated student can emerge from high school knowing the basics of history, literature, math, and science, which is pretty impressive. That being the case, i my experiance, American, high-school aged kids (myself, at the time, and my peers included) are generally too immature to take advantage of what they’re offered, and don’t take the classes seriously enough to learn the material in a meaningful way. So high school is wasted on high school kids, and they have to try again in college. Maybe it’s a problem with our educational system, maybe with our society, or maybe it’s just an age thing.

Additionally, I just want to point out that one of the benefits of a required core curriculum is that the courses are actually offered. I probably would have taken more core-type classes if I could have. Professors like to teach more specialized classes, though. I think that’s a problem a lot of people have been raising recently.

]]> By: Greg A. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21133 Greg A. Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:34:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21133 I also don't think they actually called it the 'Foreign Language requirement,' either. Eh, whatever. I also don’t think they actually called it the ‘Foreign Language requirement,’ either. Eh, whatever.

]]> By: Greg A. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21134 Greg A. Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:32:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21134 OK. Make fun of my spelling. And I think, strictly speaking, the courses satisfying the <i>Foreign</i> language requirement were taught by the Department of Modern Languages. And I don't think there was any requirement that the language you took had to be foreign to you: in my 9 person Russian class, I think only 2 or 3 people couldn't already speak at least some Russian. OK. Make fun of my spelling. And I think, strictly speaking, the courses satisfying the Foreign language requirement were taught by the Department of Modern Languages. And I don’t think there was any requirement that the language you took had to be foreign to you: in my 9 person Russian class, I think only 2 or 3 people couldn’t already speak at least some Russian.

]]> By: Count Iblis http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21135 Count Iblis Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:32:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21135 Greg: <blockquote> <strong>Foriegn</strong> Language courses...</blockquote> Do they teach that at university? I only found one high school where they have a "Foriegn Language Department": <a href="http://www.ames.k12.ia.us/2005ACSD/2005ACSD/AHS/FL.htm" rel="nofollow">Ames High School Foriegn Language Department</a> :) Greg:
Foriegn Language courses…

Do they teach that at university? I only found one high school where they have a “Foriegn Language Department”:

Ames High School Foriegn Language Department :)

]]> By: Greg A. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21137 Greg A. Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:14:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21137 Your ideal course schedule sounds similar to Loyola University Chicago's core (at least when I was there; they've recently changed it), which was, if memory serves: 3 Philosophy Courses 3 Theology Courses 3 Literature Courses 2 English Comp. courses 2 History Courses 2 Social Science Courses 1 Fine Arts 3 Science Courses, with at least one physical science course and one life science course 1 (or two, I placed into Multi Variable Calc, so I have no idea) math/stat courses 2 Foriegn Language courses, or proficiency which could come from Highschool. I think the only real changes involved requiring 5 total phil/theo instead of 6, with a mandatory course having to deal with ethics or morality (or something), and they've changed the math requirement to be any course having a quantitative componant. At least I think that's what they did. I was able to double major in Math and Physics, but only got out in four years without taking summer school because I had entered with around a year of AP credit. Personally, I wish I would have stayed longer and picked up a comparative lit minor or an English lit major, but I've been informed on numerous occasions that I'm not too normal :-) . I think other people have said this in the comments, but I'll say it anyway: I think it's still worth having a demanding course requirment, rather than a kind of, "Do what feels right,"- type of requirement, if only to force students to think outside of their field--or possibly just to force students to think. Your ideal course schedule sounds similar to Loyola University Chicago’s core (at least when I was there; they’ve recently changed it), which was, if memory serves:

3 Philosophy Courses
3 Theology Courses
3 Literature Courses
2 English Comp. courses
2 History Courses
2 Social Science Courses
1 Fine Arts
3 Science Courses, with at least one physical science course and one life science course
1 (or two, I placed into Multi Variable Calc, so I have no idea) math/stat courses
2 Foriegn Language courses, or proficiency which could come from Highschool.

I think the only real changes involved requiring 5 total phil/theo instead of 6, with a mandatory course having to deal with ethics or morality (or something), and they’ve changed the math requirement to be any course having a quantitative componant. At least I think that’s what they did. I was able to double major in Math and Physics, but only got out in four years without taking summer school because I had entered with around a year of AP credit.

Personally, I wish I would have stayed longer and picked up a comparative lit minor or an English lit major, but I’ve been informed on numerous occasions that I’m not too normal :-) . I think other people have said this in the comments, but I’ll say it anyway: I think it’s still worth having a demanding course requirment, rather than a kind of, “Do what feels right,”- type of requirement, if only to force students to think outside of their field–or possibly just to force students to think.

]]> By: Adrian Burd http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21136 Adrian Burd Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:38:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21136 My oh my, Sean has stirred up a storm. It appears to me that the European (I was educated in the English system) and the American systems have very different assumptions underlying them, and serve different purposes. At least in my day (cue Monty Python sketch), secondary education gave one sufficient depth in a wide range of subjects to make an educated choice about what to study at university. But, such a choice did not entrain you into a specific vocational path. It would be interesting to see statistics related to choices of major and profession 5, 10 and 20 years after graduation, in Europe and the US. To my mind, secondary education in the US is, in general, an unmitigated disaster. I would also have to agree with the individual who argued that general education requirements at universities only serve to provide a veneer of knowledge and understanding. I work in an interdisciplinary field (oceanography) in the US. Whilst generalizing a tad, most students entering graduate school to study physical oceanography wouldn't know a bacterium from a virus, and most entering for a PhD in biological oceanography couldn't solve (dy/dt = -ky) if their lives depended on it. I admit that my sample size is small and selective, but it would lend one to suspect the success of general education requirements, at least in the sciences. As for what I would impose if everyone was unfortunate enough to have me in charge; I don't know. One failure of education systems in general is that they are full of well meaning people with grand plans, but few of these plans are ever followed to completion and fewer still are analyzed to discover objectively what works and what does not - in large part because for a plan to be successfully examined it has to be followed for many years, and others will change the plan before there are sufficient data to really get ones teeth into. So the upshot is we have to muddle through as best we can. Given that, I do agree with Sean and others, that one full semester of special relativity is excessive. Now, if one were talking about a semester of fluid mechanics, that would be a different thing altogether - I know several folks working in classical general relativity who would argue that a throrough study of fluid mechanics is very helpful in that field as well. Adrian My oh my, Sean has stirred up a storm. It appears to me that the European
(I was educated in the English system) and the American systems have very
different assumptions underlying them, and serve different purposes. At least
in my day (cue Monty Python sketch), secondary education gave one sufficient
depth in a wide range of subjects to make an educated choice about what to study at university. But, such a choice did not entrain you into a specific
vocational path. It would be interesting to see statistics related to choices of
major and profession 5, 10 and 20 years after graduation, in Europe and the US.

To my mind, secondary education in the US is, in general, an unmitigated
disaster. I would also have to agree with the individual who argued that
general education requirements at universities only serve to provide a
veneer of knowledge and understanding. I work in an interdisciplinary
field (oceanography) in the US. Whilst generalizing a tad, most students entering
graduate school to study physical oceanography wouldn’t know a bacterium
from a virus, and most entering for a PhD in biological oceanography
couldn’t solve (dy/dt = -ky) if their lives depended on it. I admit that my
sample size is small and selective, but it would lend one to suspect the
success of general education requirements, at least in the sciences.

As for what I would impose if everyone was unfortunate enough to have me
in charge; I don’t know. One failure of education systems in general is that
they are full of well meaning people with grand plans, but few of these plans
are ever followed to completion and fewer still are analyzed to discover objectively what works and what does not – in large part because for a plan
to be successfully examined it has to be followed for many years, and others
will change the plan before there are sufficient data to really get ones teeth into.

So the upshot is we have to muddle through as best we can. Given that,
I do agree with Sean and others, that one full semester of special
relativity is excessive. Now, if one were talking about a semester of
fluid mechanics, that would be a different thing altogether – I know
several folks working in classical general relativity who would argue that
a throrough study of fluid mechanics is very helpful in that field as well.

Adrian

]]> By: JMG3Y http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-21139 JMG3Y Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:26:44 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/12/imagine-all-the-learning/#comment-21139 To the query above, I should have added the selection of advisor/mentor to the list of the relative importance of what matters for the next step. I encountered a Phd from a top tier school who couldn't have bought a post-doc if he had paid for the whole thing. He and his advisor had stacked the deck in selecting his Phd committee so badly that he got off with one that wasn't worth much more than the paper it was printed on and the department had let them get away with it. To the query above, I should have added the selection of advisor/mentor to the list of the relative importance of what matters for the next step.

I encountered a Phd from a top tier school who couldn’t have bought a post-doc if he had paid for the whole thing. He and his advisor had stacked the deck in selecting his Phd committee so badly that he got off with one that wasn’t worth much more than the paper it was printed on and the department had let them get away with it.

]]>