"We don't need to know a lot of this stuff now, we have Google." says Pat Kenny

languagenerd

Have we really got to the point where people think we don't need to learn anything because we have search engines?

A few days ago the Irish Independent had interviews with "celebrities" asking them how the LC went for them back in the day. (Online version here) Now, I know what AH thinks of Pat Kenny (:pac:) but what he said got me thinking:

But if you want high points, you learn stuff off by heart."
He continued: "It has to be redesigned for the 21st Century. We don't need to know a lot of this stuff now, we have Google.

I agree that some of the Leaving Cert (and education in general) needs reforming, but, to be honest, the idea of relying on Google for everything scares me. It's important to learn things and to know things: if we don't, we'll eventually become technology-dependent automates incapable of independent thinking...

Or am I just turning into a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist? AH, do you think we should give up learning off facts and turn to Google whenever we need info?

Pj!

Einstein: “Never memorize something that you can look up.”

He believed it was needlessly cluttering the brain.



But learning stuff in school is probably advantageous as it shows work ethic etc.

ClongowesBoy

You're reading into it too much, I agree with Patsy on this one, memorising is in all seriousness a relatively useless skill in today's world. It's been rendered this way because of technology(tbh it was never that useful anyway). Does this mean that we shouldn't bother learning anything? Not at all, just means it's easier to access information and therefore not knowing it off the top of your head isn't going to kill you.


Think the main point was that the LC is a memory test which is obviously not what you want for a state exam given how useless memorising is.

Latchy

I love this 'information in second ' search engine world but I'll never stop reading a good book .

cherryghost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vsCAM17O-M

WilyCoyote

Pj! wrote: »

Einstein: “Never memorize something that you can look up.”


He believed it was needlessly cluttering the brain.

Headline in Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph:

Shock horror as Irishman agrees with Einstein

EyeSight

i think he means some things should be learned by heart, but most things don't need to be. I think he's right. The exams should be more unpredictable and technical. By technical i mean applying knowledge to solve a problem. Not write down a load of stuff from memory

Mocha Joe

Pat Kenny doesn't need a team of researchers, he gets paid enough to just use google himself.

Seachmall

languagenerd wrote: »

It's important to learn things and to know things: if we don't, we'll eventually become technology-dependent automates incapable of independent thinking...

For knowledge we're already dependent on books, this is just an extension of that.

I used to have big reference books for programming, now I have google.

I'm sure the same is true for other fields.

As for independent thinking I don't think it changes anything. If you don't apply scepticism to things you read on the internet you're certainly not going to be sceptical of things you read in books.

Scepticism and rational thought should be applied to everything, regardless if it comes from Wiki or the Encyclopedia Britannica.

kilkenny12

Pj! wrote: »

Einstein: “Never memorize something that you can look up.”

He believed it was needlessly cluttering the brain.



But learning stuff in school is probably advantageous as it shows work ethic etc.

But ya can easily look up everything these days!!

Oh but if Einstein said it, it is philosophical and must be obeyed:p

Tar.Aldarion

languagenerd wrote: »

Have we really got to the point where people think we don't need to learn anything because we have search engines?

A few days ago the Irish Independent had interviews with "celebrities" asking them how the LC went for them back in the day. (Online version here) Now, I know what AH thinks of Pat Kenny (:pac:) but what he said got me thinking:



I agree that some of the Leaving Cert (and education in general) needs reforming, but, to be honest, the idea of relying on Google for everything scares me. It's important to learn things and to know things: if we don't, we'll eventually become technology-dependent automates incapable of independent thinking...

Or am I just turning into a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist? AH, do you think we should give up learning off facts and turn to Google whenever we need info?

He is right in the fact that most stuff was learned off and didn't need to be. You learn methods and why to do things, you shouldn't learn by rote and he is correct.

The Backwards Man

I just had to google who Pat Kenny is.:o

Juniorhurler

Not nearly as much rote learning in education nowadays as when Pat Kenny was there.

You get all these people saying the LC hasn't changed in years.The reality is that the exams have changed a lot individually bit not the structure of the whole thing, I.e exams at the end of a two year cycle. Critical thinking is far more important now.

languagenerd

Interesting replies. In terms of the Leaving Cert, yes, rote-learning should be less valuable than knowing how to apply what you know to different situations/problems. But to an extent, it is possible to do the LC without simply memorising everything: I honestly never learned off fixed answers for anything. With languages, I learned phrases that I could apply to different topics; with maths, accounting and chemistry, I learned how to do various equations and experiments.

But moving away from the LC, I just really don't like the idea of never learning facts for the sake of knowing them. I know I could Google things, but it's good not to have to. You never know when a random piece of information you know will come in handy. And though Einstein may have considered it cluttering the mind, I think it's broadening your mind to learn as much as you can about different topics.

cherryghost wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vsCAM17O-M

Good video. The Internet is definitely changing how we learn. But I don't know if we have the discipline that his vision requires If we were all to learn via a personalised online tutor, it would take effort and willpower to make sure you kept it up; and some people wouldn't. At least with human teachers, there's the chance that you may learn something, if only by accident :pac:

Mardy Bum

Memory and intelligence (and creativity) are inextricably linked. Those with a poor working memory do considerable worse than those with better working memories on intelligence tests statistically.

charlemont

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Headline in Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph:

Shock horror as Irishman agrees with Einstein

And yet still comes across as an idiot..

IM0

languagenerd wrote: »

Good video. The Internet is definitely changing how we learn. But I don't know if we have the discipline that his vision requires If we were all to learn via a personalised online tutor, it would take effort and willpower to make sure you kept it up; and some people wouldn't. At least with human teachers, there's the chance that you may learn something, if only by accident :pac:

yeah that vid is a classic case of "I think like this so that means everyone else will do the same and will view it the same" which funnily enough there are alot of people like that *looks around AH* but not nearly enough for that system to work Id say

the_syco

ClongowesBoy wrote: »

You're reading into it too much, I agree with Patsy on this one

Look at the people who don't know how to use a computer, never mind knowing how to open up Google, and you'll see why learning stuff is important.

MadYaker

Being able to memorise stuff is still helpful, even if the internet has all the answers. I'm doing research on the bacteria that cause lyme disease as part of my degree at the moment. Everything I'm doing in the lab relies on me having the knowledge of biochemistry/microbiology I've built up over the last few years in my head, not in books or on the internet. If I had to look up everything I needed to know my work would take 10 times longer. I still have to use google sometimes obviously.

But I do think there should be a greater focus on IT skills and problem solving skills at leaving cert level rather than just learning off big chunks of info.

hatrickpatrick

I actually agree with this. Learning how to do things, learning about ways of thinking, about politics, media, for the financial system works languages, etc are all far more important in my opinion than learning facts off by heart which can easily be looked up. For that reason I think some exams are a little moronic. I've never seen the point of LC History - I absolutely love history and I'd consider myself very knowledgable about it, and I did history for the LC. It wasn't an exam in historical fact, critical analysis, critical thinking or even just discussing history, it was an exam in how the hell can someone write that number of essays in that amount of time. Every history class I had as the LC approached stopped being about learning or discussing history and became instead about "You're going to have to write faster than that".

The idea that most people actually knew the facts they needed for the exam but were let down because either their hands couldn't move as fast as they needed to in the short time allowed for the paper, or because they didn't have enough time to sit back and actually think about the question they were about to answer.

So yes, I'd agree in a large part with Kenny and the OP. The current system of education is completely and utterly outdated.

Pj!

Pj! wrote: »

Einstein: “Never memorize something that you can look up.”

He believed it was needlessly cluttering the brain.

It must have taken him ages to get anything done.

TheLastMohican

I wondered if the bould Pat googled squatter's rights before unsuccessfully defending his landgrab a few years back?

ringadingding

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I just had to google who Pat Kenny is.:o

In every thread, every single thread, every single god damn last thread regarding a celebrity / well known person.
Somebody pretends to not know said person.

TimeToShine

ClongowesBoy wrote: »

You're reading into it too much, I agree with Patsy on this one, memorising is in all seriousness a relatively useless skill in today's world. It's been rendered this way because of technology(tbh it was never that useful anyway). Does this mean that we shouldn't bother learning anything? Not at all, just means it's easier to access information and therefore not knowing it off the top of your head isn't going to kill you.


Think the main point was that the LC is a memory test which is obviously not what you want for a state exam given how useless memorising is.

I honestly think if the LC were redesigned to test conceptual understanding rather than rote learning then the standard of teaching in this country would undoubtedly be revealed to be just as poor as a lot of cynics believe it is. As well as this the general results would plummet. Teaching people to actually understand is not something anyone can do, in fact very few second level teachers can actually do this, considering those who can actually convey their thoughts are probably advanced academics.

TheLastMohican

ringadingding wrote: »

In every thread, every single thread, every single god damn last thread regarding a celebrity / well known person.
Somebody pretends to not know said person.

Hey there ringadingding. Calm down. You're going to blow a gasket.

ringadingding

TheLastMohican wrote: »

Hey there ringadingding. Calm down. You're going to blow a gasket.

Ill calm down once I've googled Daniel day Lewis :-)

languagenerd

To reiterate, in case people are getting me wrong: I think Pat is right (!) about needing to reform the education system to involve less rote-learning, but wrong about not needing to learn "googleable" facts. The more you learn, the more you are capable of learning. If you have the basic facts of anything memorised, it's far easier to understand more complicated concepts based on them.

TimeToShine wrote: »

I honestly think if the LC were redesigned to test conceptual understanding rather than rote learning then the standard of teaching in this country would undoubtedly be revealed to be just as poor as a lot of cynics believe it is. As well as this the general results would plummet. Teaching people to actually understand is not something anyone can do, in fact very few second level teachers can actually do this, considering those who can actually convey their thoughts are probably advanced academics.

To do that, we'd have to reform the whole system, from primary school right up to teacher-training courses. One of the problems with Project Maths was that they introduced it in fifth year to students who'd been learning the old way for 12 years at that stage, as well as to teachers who were used to the old syllabus. You can't just suddenly change methods of learning or most students will fall through the cracks.

looking_around

ringadingding wrote: »

In every thread, every single thread, every single god damn last thread regarding a celebrity / well known person.
Somebody pretends to not know said person.

What makes you think it's pretend? I couldn't care less who's who. So I often don't know the 'famous' people, people are talking about.

Like this Pat kenny. I know he's discussed alot. But exactly who he is what he does? no idea.. He's some politician? ..meh. not even gonna google it.

__
Bet yes, I do think less memorizing is good.
For example..learning certain formulas in maths off.. and LEARNING theorems off..Oh no, we won't teach you to understand them and why those theorems are right..just make sure you can write these lines of senseless alphabet down. bravo.

That always seemed foolish to my eyes. And I could understand the theorems. I also picked up formulas very easily. But so many in the class were trying to use these formulas, without knowing why they work/exist. Doing the work is much easier when you can understand it..not repeat it .

Was the same thing in chemistry. Why do I need to know which scientist discovered what and when they discovered it? o0 ..thats going to help me understand it? ..no..but understanding the experiments they did and HOW they figured things out, yes..that well. Learning names and dates off...blah. pointless.

Cody Pomeray

ringadingding wrote: »

In every thread, every single thread, every single god damn last thread regarding a celebrity / well known person.
Somebody pretends to not know said person.

I believe him/ her.

I was talking to a couple of 1st years recently (this is 1st year in University) who didn't know who Miriam O'Callaghan is. Genuinely no idea.

When we were young, we were probably reliant on tv channels; kids these days are more dependent on online media and might rarely/ never access domestic stations or pick up the paper.

In any case, Pat is right on this one. Lots of 3rd level courses have been offering 'open book' exams on their courses for years. makes perfect sense, of course.

looking_around

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I believe him/ her.

I was talking to a couple of 1st years recently (this is 1st year in University) who didn't know who Miriam O'Callaghan is. Genuinely no idea.

When we were young, we were probably reliant on tv channels; kids these days are more dependent on online media and might rarely/ never access domestic stations or pick up the paper.

I'm no first year..not even in school ..who's this miriam o callaghan?
No, I'm not really asking. But, yes. I don't know who they are or what they've done.

Cody Pomeray

looking_around wrote: »

I'm no first year..not even in school ..who's this miriam o callaghan?
No, I'm not really asking. But, yes. I don't know who they are or what they've done.

Don't you watch RTE/ read papers/ enjoy MILFs?

Seachmall

looking_around wrote: »

I'm no first year..not even in school ..who's this miriam o callaghan?
No, I'm not really asking. But, yes. I don't know who they are or what they've done.

Have you recently arrived in Ireland or something?

Corkfeen

Juniorhurler wrote: »

Not nearly as much rote learning in education nowadays as when Pat Kenny was there.

You get all these people saying the LC hasn't changed in years.The reality is that the exams have changed a lot individually bit not the structure of the whole thing, I.e exams at the end of a two year cycle. Critical thinking is far more important now.

Erm no it's not. Did the Leaving Cert three years ago. Biology consisted of learning off definitions that you'd recite word for word in an exam, the same applied to Business and Economics. There was a certain level of critical thinking but it was minimal and for the most part it consisted of the idea of learning off essays. Try writing an entirely unique interpretation of a book for example that is entirely valid and see how well you'd get on in contrast to the person who learns off an essay with the preferred answer for examiners.

looking_around

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Don't you watch RTE/ read papers/ enjoy MILFs?

RTE????? you're joking right? :cool:

I do read some news, online, albiet. But only if it seems very important. Close to home, WILL/could affect me in some way.

and MILFs? o0 ..

Cody Pomeray

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm no it's not. Did the Leaving Cert three years ago. Biology consisted of learning off definitions that you'd recite word for word in an exam, the same applied to Business and Economics. There was a certain level of critical thinking but it was minimal and for the most part it consisted of the idea of learning off essays. Try writing an entirely unique interpretation of a book for example that is entirely valid and see how well you'd get on in contrast to the person who learns off an essay with the preferred answer for examiners.

It's a broad spectrum. Creative and original thinking are rewarded in Maths, English, Engineering and Irish, for example.

CatFromHue

What if you're in a situation where you've no access to Google?

Or more importantly somewhere where Google is censored or wrong?

Google is a tool that lets you access the internet, what you find on it may or may not be true.

looking_around

CatFromHue wrote: »

(1)What if you're in a situation where you've no access to Google?

(2)Or more importantly somewhere where Google is censored or wrong?

(3)Google is a tool that lets you access the internet, what you find on it may or may not be true.

(1) .. Use a library. Books, print off info when you have access. This is clearly for the first world countries. Where everyone has access. If not at home, through public places.

(2) if it's censored what does it matter than? your schooling would be censored too, anyway

(3) google is synonymous with search engine. Thats what, this Pat, meant. Obviously.

snubbleste

Mocha Joe wrote: »

Pat Kenny doesn't need a team of researchers, he gets paid enough to just use google himself.

Ewwww!

Photoshop

Deleted User wrote: »

It must have taken him ages to get anything done.

Not when your a plagiarist and a fraud

Supposedly

CatFromHue

looking_around wrote: »

(1) .. Use a library. Books, print off info when you have access. This is clearly for the first world countries. Where everyone has access. If not at home, through public places.

(2) if it's censored what does it matter than? your schooling would be censored too, anyway

(3) google is synonymous with search engine. Thats what, this Pat, meant. Obviously.

Libraries tend to only stock pleasure reading material, they're not great for school books or books like them.

Is Google censored in China? I can't remember but thought it was so if you're over there and want to look up Tienanmen Square you won't find anything. Whereas if you learnt about this by rote learning in school you wouldn't need to.

Google and other search engines are tools that link you to websites that may or may not be verified to be true. While things may be changing but when I was in college referencing websites was not looked upon too favourably. That is changing to a degree but is still not as good as a peer reviewed book or journal.

looking_around

CatFromHue wrote: »

Libraries tend to only stock pleasure reading material, they're not great for school books or books like them.

Is Google censored in China? I can't remember but thought it was so if you're over there and want to look up Tienanmen Square you won't find anything. Whereas if you learnt about this by rote learning in school you wouldn't need to.

Google and other search engines are tools that link you to websites that may or may not be verified to be true. While things may be changing but when I was in college referencing websites was not looked upon too favourably. That is changing to a degree but is still not as good as a peer reviewed book or journal.

Actually, many libraries stock factual books, less so, since there not all that needed anymore.
Generally, you're not allowed to take these books out of the library, though.

What they learned would be censored anyway, but I'm sure something would come up on search. Just, only what they are allowed to know.

Don't beleive everything you read. Needs to be greatly applied to the internet. Thats true. Doesn't mean we need to be learning off so much crap in schools. Again, like pointless names and dates. in chemistry >.>. Having history as an exam subject. Learning off massive formulas in maths(something they have recently changed however).

This is akin to still doing, long/complicated maths without a calculator. Schools used to do this. And used log tables for sin & cos .. now, you use the calculator. It doesn't changed your understanding, but removes time consuming, pointless memorizations .

syklops

CatFromHue wrote: »

Libraries tend to only stock pleasure reading material, they're not great for school books or books like them.

Is Google censored in China? I can't remember but thought it was so if you're over there and want to look up Tienanmen Square you won't find anything. Whereas if you learnt about this by rote learning in school you wouldn't need to.

Google and other search engines are tools that link you to websites that may or may not be verified to be true. While things may be changing but when I was in college referencing websites was not looked upon too favourably. That is changing to a degree but is still not as good as a peer reviewed book or journal.

Not sure if your trolling or just stupid.

trashcan

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I just had to google who Pat Kenny is.:o

Really, I memorised it :P

Wibbs

Pj! wrote: »

Einstein: “Never memorize something that you can look up.”

He believed it was needlessly cluttering the brain.

Jaysus I'm fooked then! :eek: Inside my head looks like a victorian gents study.

But learning stuff in school is probably advantageous as it shows work ethic etc.

Funny enough in school I assiduously avoided learning stuff. Well most of the school curriculum stuff anyway. I could never study TBH. Too thick and couldn't apply myself. Still can't. It's either by near unconscious osmosis or nothing.

CatFromHue

syklops wrote: »

Not sure if your trolling or just stupid.

**** off!

Pj!

Wibbs wrote: »

Jaysus I'm fooked then! :eek: Inside my head looks like a victorian gents study.

Funny enough in school I assiduously avoided learning stuff. Well most of the school curriculum stuff anyway. I could never study TBH. Too thick and couldn't apply myself. Still can't. It's either by near unconscious osmosis or nothing.

I won't enter debate with Einstein or yourself Wibbs. I'll sit this one out!

Having a genuine interest in something makes it easy to learn I suppose. And schools are not for everyone.