The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.

steddyeddy

The title is a quote attributed to Albert Einstein. Him alongside scientists like Richard Feynman or John Gurdon (Nobel prize winners) disliked the way the education system was run. They thought that it relied too much on rote learning rather than encouraging kids to be creative, engage in problem solving and ask why in general. Many of these geniuses had horrible times at school and were called stupid or dumb. Albert Einstein said:

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid

Is school today too much about rote learning and not about teaching kids to think for themselves or is the system working? Is doing well at school a sign of intelligence and is doing badly at school mean you're not meant for academia?

I personally think the leaving cert is the biggest load of toss going. I don't think 600 points says anything other than you work hard and have a good memory. I think publishing a paper or discovering something is more indicative of intelligence.

Muise...

I despair at Einstein quote-memes being used to back up all kinds of anti-school/system cobblers. You didn't like school? Grand. Most of us disliked aspects of growing up; it's not an easy thing to do. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, because that's a sign of very low intelligence.

steddyeddy

Muise... wrote: »

I despair at Einstein quote-memes being used to back up all kinds of anti-school/system cobblers. You didn't like school? Grand. Most of us disliked aspects of growing up; it's not an easy thing to do. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, because that's a sign of very low intelligence.

I'm not anti school. I'm anti fixed curriculum and pro new ideas. We need a schooling system IMO.

Muise...

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not anti school. I'm anti fixed curriculum and pro new ideas. We need a schooling system IMO.

Maybe we need better teachers and better students, who will actually do a bit of heavy work instead of insisting on a precious snowflake schooling?

I had the usual formal education and never once did it stifle my curiosity, problem solving or creativity. People who have these traits should be well able to apply them to the current system. Otherwise they're probably not as genius as Einstein or other rebels they like to foist their cause on.

steddyeddy

Muise... wrote: »

I despair at Einstein quote-memes being used to back up all kinds of anti-school/system cobblers. You didn't like school? Grand. Most of us disliked aspects of growing up; it's not an easy thing to do. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, because that's a sign of very low intelligence.

By the way you missed the sentiment entirely. Not liking school isn't the crux of the matter. None of these people were recognised as brilliant in school and that's the point of the matter.

tomwaterford

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not anti school. I'm anti fixed curriculum and pro new ideas. We need a schooling system IMO.

the only issue is you need a fixed curriculum to test people at the end...otherwise youd end up with a mish-mash of different standreds of people coming out every year
I hated it myself...felt most to all was pointless....it was just lucky I left school during the boom and managed to get a trade...I would despair for people like me who are leaving school now and wouldn't be able to hack collage:mad::mad:

steddyeddy

Muise... wrote: »

Maybe we need better teachers and better students, who will actually do a bit of heavy work instead of insisting on a precious snowflake schooling?

I had the usual formal education and never once did it stifle my curiosity, problem solving or creativity. People who have these traits should be well able to apply them to the current system. Otherwise they're probably not as genius as Einstein or other rebels they like to foist their cause on.

I think the creativity comes first followed by the hard work. I'm a scientist and my creativity was stifled at school. My first job as a scientist is come up with a question. Then the hard work follows.

I feel let down by the education system. Autumn was only explained to me for 6 years in a row, I think another couple of years and I would understand why all the trees keep dying.

steddyeddy

tomwaterford wrote: »

the only issue is you need a fixed curriculum to test people at the end...otherwise youd end up with a mish-mash of different standreds of people coming out every year
I hated it myself...felt most to all was pointless....it was just lucky I left school during the boom and managed to get a trade...I would despair for people like me who are leaving school now and wouldn't be able to hack collage:mad::mad:

College can be very different from school Tom. A lot of people who are told they're not college material based on their school performance were lied to to say the least.

steddyeddy

John Gurdon Nobel prize winner was told this by one of his teachers:

"I believe he has ideas about becoming a scientist; on his present showing this is quite ridiculous."

Dr.Gurdon later contributed massively to our knowledge of stem cells.

Muise...

steddyeddy wrote: »

By the way you missed the sentiment entirely. Not liking school isn't the crux of the matter. None of these people were recognised as brilliant in school and that's the point of the matter.

Who is recognised as brilliant at school? And if they are, would that not be a disadvantage? I was crazy precocious - but that's all it was, I was an unusually quick learner for my age. Thank fcuk I wasn't set aside as a "genius" because everyone caught up later and I'd have been slow to develop social and emotional intelligence. School should be about standards; as they are understood, creativity can flourish.

Also, I'm crap at sports, but I got though PE in school and don't go round looking for an overhaul because it didn't suit me.

tomwaterford

steddyeddy wrote: »

College can be very different from school Tom. A lot of people who are told they're not college material based on their school performance were lied to to say the least.

I hope so for the people leaving...I was going to do computer science:eek:..

I remember going to career advice meeting in school and your wan told me I wouldn't be going to collage and just handed leaflets to me on apprenticeships!!(I may have been disruptful little sh1t in my youth)

its not that I was thick...its just I had no interest in being there after 14 years in school I felt like a change:D

even when I in FAS I used be pissed off after the 10 weeks

Burky126

Modern public education is nothing more than an assembly line. Getting kids to regurgitate information without much logical foundation so that they can be easily absorbed into the working class without protest.

The classroom is a blueprint of the society we enter. Intellectual discovery is scorned, mindless gossip is all the talk and authority is both irrational and useless at times but always out to put you under thumb. It's preparation.

This is why I hate the term 'genius.' Like the Einstein's quote explains,we all have geniuses but broad definitions don't do the smart kids or the kids who have a lack of potential in mathematical or spatial I.Q. justice.The school system re-enforces this. Hence,we get apathetic adults and society as a result.

Call Me Jimmy

For some subjects already there is subjective marking am I right? Say an english short story, that is done through standardised marking but is creative so I don't see how there is an issue with placing more emphasis on creativity while retaining standards?

steddyeddy

Muise... wrote: »

Who is recognised as brilliant at school? And if they are, would that not be a disadvantage? I was crazy precocious - but that's all it was, I was an unusually quick learner for my age. Thank fcuk I wasn't set aside as a "genius" because everyone caught up later and I'd have been slow to develop social and emotional intelligence. School should be about standards; as they are understood, creativity can flourish.

Also, I'm crap at sports, but I got though PE in school and don't go round looking for an overhaul because it didn't suit me.

You doing badly at something you are bad at and a nobel prize winning scientist doing badly at science are two very different things. You're missing the point completely.

Muise...

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the creativity comes first followed by the hard work. I'm a scientist and my creativity was stifled at school. My first job as a scientist is come up with a question. Then the hard work follows.

We're at cross-purposes then. How do you find your question if you haven't been shown the information/material/field which begs your question?

BTW I don't think the info.-creative process is, or should be, sequential in an imposed, curricular way. It's an iterative loop that can happen many times a day, never mind a school year.

steddyeddy

tomwaterford wrote: »

I hope so for the people leaving...I was going to do computer science:eek:..

I remember going to career advice meeting in school and your wan told me I wouldn't be going to collage and just handed leaflets to me on apprenticeships!!(I may have been disruptful little sh1t in my youth)

its not that I was thick...its just I had no interest in being there after 14 years in school I felt like a change:D

even when I in FAS I used be pissed off after the 10 weeks

As a scientist and someone who loves to promote science I hope you're career advisor gets a battering. You had an interest and she should have fostered it.

Frank Lee Midere

steddyeddy wrote: »

By the way you missed the sentiment entirely. Not liking school isn't the crux of the matter. None of these people were recognised as brilliant in school and that's the point of the matter.

I found this on Feynman:

Feynman attended Far Rockaway High School, a school also attended by fellow laureates Burton Richter and Baruch Samuel Blumberg.[19] A member of the Arista Honor Society, in his last year in high school Feynman won the New York University Math Championship; the large difference between his score and those of his closest competitors shocked the judges.


The rest of the claims are probably equally spurious.

In any case "rote learning" is necessary in many subjects - try teaching biology or geography without it, and learning facts is important in others. History for instance.

Despite the rants against "rote" the system produced Shakespeare and Feynman. You can't really teach creativity. If people are good at something that will manifest somehow.

By and large if you weren't that good at school and you didn't become creative it was because you aren't either smart or creative.

steddyeddy

Muise... wrote: »

We're at cross-purposes then. How do you find your question if you haven't been shown the information/material/field which begs your question?

BTW I don't think the info.-creative process is, or should be, sequential in an imposed, curricular way. It's an iterative loop that can happen many times a day, never mind a school year.

It's all around me. I'm looking out at the moon right now and notice that the light it reflects from the sun looks distorted from the glass of my window. I could ask why that is. I don't need prior information to ask it.

Davarus Walrus

The quality of graduate being fired out of the 3rd level education system in Ireland at the moment is of a very poor standard. Too many teenagers going to college as a rite of passage. Courses that were created to justify Celtic Tiger era funding. Student unions justifying the very actions that are making their members less employable.

I work in the electrical engineering/software development area. Aside from UL, there is no college producing in Ireland producing graduates of the standard required to take up an entry level job in this niche area. A very profitable and challenging career. Many of the interviewees that arrive into us have no core skills, but do have an overwhelming sense of entitlement. We cannot move more R+D over to Ireland unless we have a better calibre of graduate. Core R&D is still taking place in the US.

Students are protesting against the very changes that would make them more employable. Madness.

Muise...

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's all around me. I'm looking out at the moon right now and notice that the light it reflects from the sun looks distorted from the glass of my window. I could ask why that is. I don't need prior information to ask it.

You do; you have visual information.

steddyeddy

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I found this on Feynman:

Feynman attended Far Rockaway High School, a school also attended by fellow laureates Burton Richter and Baruch Samuel Blumberg.[19] A member of the Arista Honor Society, in his last year in high school Feynman won the New York University Math Championship; the large difference between his score and those of his closest competitors shocked the judges.


The rest of the claims are probably equally spurious.

In any case "rote learning" is necessary in many subjects - try teaching biology or geography without it, and learning facts is important in others. History for instance.

Despite the rants against "rote" the system produced Shakespeare and Feynman. You can't really teach creativity. If people are good at something that will manifest somehow.

By and large if you weren't that good at school and you didn't become creative it was because you aren't either smart or creative.

I never said Feynman did badly at school. I said he maintained education was taught wrong. Einstein also did well at school but many scientists didn't.

steddyeddy

Muise... wrote: »

You do; you have visual information.

Right and I found I discovered that information myself. I wasn't educated in that regard nor was the information presented to me.

tomwaterford

steddyeddy wrote: »

As a scientist and someone who loves to promote science I hope you're career advisor gets a battering. You had an interest and she should have fostered it.

agh she was probily right...I was terrible at languages (failed ord English in mocks)...but could manage higher math,chemistry and physics:o

and was severly just sick of school and its rules/homework the whole time after 14 years and to voluntary do 4 more years...

I probily wouldn't have stuck at it anyway...and couldn't realistically afford to have lived in Dublin at height of boom...on the grant

though I got massively lucky in that fell into a job I love:D

Frank Lee Midere

Burky126 wrote: »

Modern public education is nothing more than an assembly line. Getting kids to regurgitate information without much logical foundation so that they can be easily absorbed into the working class without protest.

The classroom is a blueprint of the society we enter. Intellectual discovery is scorned, mindless gossip is all the talk and authority is both irrational and useless at times but always out to put you under thumb. It's preparation.

This is why I hate the term 'genius.' Like the Einstein's quote explains,we all have geniuses but broad definitions don't do the smart kids or the kids who have a lack of potential in mathematical or spatial I.Q. justice.The school system re-enforces this. Hence,we get apathetic adults and society as a result.

No. Einstein - if he even said that - was being coy about his own genius. We are not all geniuses. There are very few geniuses.

And it's easy to avoid mathematical subjects in the Irish system ( except maths itself). And it is these very scientific subjects which are the exact opposite of rote.

Jimoslimos

steddyeddy wrote: »

The title is a quote attributed to Albert Einstein. Him alongside scientists like Richard Feynman or John Gurdon (Nobel prize winners) disliked the way the education system was run. They thought that it relied too much on rote learning rather than encouraging kids to be creative, engage in problem solving and ask why in general. Many of these geniuses had horrible times at school and were called stupid or dumb.

Key example of confirmation bias here. Most "geniuses" perform well academically, there may be one or two exceptions but in general they are rarely called stupid or dumb and usually can be found towards the higher percentile range of exam scores.

Encouraging kids to be free-thinking sounds like a fantastic idea in theory but in truth most would struggle (genius or not) without some sort of structured learning, especially for the sciences. Of course that's not saying the syllabus shouldn't be reviewed on a regular basis.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think publishing a paper or discovering something is more indicative of intelligence.

Come back to me when you've had the pleasure of reading some pure awful published papers.

steddyeddy

Put it this way guys. Science in UCD has rocketed to 500 points in the last year or two. It was over 200 points around ten years ago. Are we producing better scientists now or was the extra points indicative of nothing only rote learning ability.

Turtwig

Einstein likely never said anything about judging fish. People insist on attributing quotes to him because there's something mythical about him that seemingly carries authority and truth. Weird but that's the way it is.

Education is very much caught in the past. It hasn't changed at all really. It does need to change and so do attitudes. A person will happily spend ages to prep for a marathon. Yet when it comes to stuff like mathematics it's accepted that the aptitude isn't there. That people with 'math brains' have natural talent or some other nonsense. In general, this applies to many facets of society and education never really configured itself to combat those myths. Things are changing though and the best way to learn is with the help and guidance of others while you make mistakes. Whatever system incorporates that is in my mind education. Career factory it should never be.

tomwaterford

steddyeddy wrote: »

Put it this way guys. Science in UCD has rocketed to 500 points in the last year or two. It was over 200 points around ten years ago. Are we producing better scientists now or was the extra points indicative of nothing only rote learning ability.

the points indicate the popularity of the course AFAIK

it is handed out from highest to lowest ranking in points

this would say the science course is more popular now than ten years ago...not necessary that its producing better scientists (it should as imo someone with 500 points is inevitably going to be smarter than someone with 200 points)

steddyeddy

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Key example of confirmation bias here. Most "geniuses" perform well academically, there may be one or two exceptions but in general they are rarely called stupid or dumb and usually can be found towards the higher percentile range of exam scores.

Encouraging kids to be free-thinking sounds like a fantastic idea in theory but in truth most would struggle (genius or not) without some sort of structured learning, especially for the sciences. Of course that's not saying the syllabus shouldn't be reviewed on a regular basis.

Come back to me when you've had the pleasure of reading some pure awful published papers.

Actually it doesn't take genius or brains to do well in the current leaving cert. It takes rote learning. That's the point. We need less of it. I have read awful papers it's sort of my job thanks.

Encourage kids to ask questions is important imo.

Frank Lee Midere

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's all around me. I'm looking out at the moon right now and notice that the light it reflects from the sun looks distorted from the glass of my window. I could ask why that is. I don't need prior information to ask it.

I presume you would come up with the mathematics to describe that phenonomon yourself without recourse to anything taught at school. Being your own Euclid, and Newton.

Or did some of this knowledge have to be imparted to you.

Turtwig

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Despite the rants against "rote" the system produced Shakespeare and Feynman. You can't really teach creativity. If people are good at something that will manifest somehow.

Just on this.

It's a very weak line of reasoning. Would you say that because one person in the U.S can become supremely wealth, poverty and inequality aren't an issue? Just because Feynman exists doesn't mean the system is working the way it should be. It just means that Feynman exists.

steddyeddy

Jernal wrote: »

Einstein likely never said anything about judging fish. People insist on attributing quotes to him because there's something mythical about him that seemingly carries authority and truth. Weird but that's the way it is.

Education is very much caught in the past. It hasn't changed at all really. It does need to change and so do attitudes. A person will happily spend ages to prep for a marathon. Yet when it comes to stuff like mathematics it's accepted that the aptitude isn't there. That people with 'math brains' have natural talent or some other nonsense. In general, this applies to many facets of society and education never really configured itself to combat those myths. Things are changing though and the best way to learn is with the help and guidance of others while you make mistakes. Whatever system incorporates that is in my mind education. Career factory it should never be.

Everything we know about neuroscience says we can adapt to get better at any subject. The most important thing IMHO is that we encourage kids to have an interest in something, then the questions follow and then the improvement.

Muise...

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right and I found I discovered that information myself. I wasn't educated in that regard nor was the information presented to me.

So are you really going to plough your own furrow because you think the school system should be changed, or would you maybe participate in your own education and ask a teacher or consult a book for more information on the properties interactions of light and glass? Where will you find a teacher and a book? Where will you learn to read the book?

Sorry your creativity was stifled, but these questions and wonderings and researches happened all the time at my school - ordinary state primary and secondary.

steddyeddy

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I presume you would come up with the mathematics to describe that phenonomon yourself without recourse to anything taught at school. Being your own Euclid, and Newton.

Or did some of this knowledge have to be imparted to you.

No I would indeed learn the required maths. I didn't say ignore previous wisdom nor did I say reject information. I said you don't need the information to come up with the question. You do need it to solve the question.

Frank Lee Midere

Jernal wrote: »

Einstein likely never said anything about judging fish. People insist on attributing quotes to him because there's something mythical about him that seemingly carries authority and truth. Weird but that's the way it is.

Education is very much caught in the past. It hasn't changed at all really. It does need to change and so do attitudes. A person will happily spend ages to prep for a marathon. Yet when it comes to stuff like mathematics it's accepted that the aptitude isn't there. That people with 'math brains' have natural talent or some other nonsense. In general, this applies to many facets of society and education never really configured itself to combat those myths. Things are changing though and the best way to learn is with the help and guidance of others while you make mistakes. Whatever system incorporates that is in my mind education. Career factory it should never be.

Bad analogy. While anybody in reasonable health can run a marathon not everybody can do it quickly. Mathematical ability seems inate to me - the best two guys I went to school with were the sons of a plumber and a farmer. Neither parents were mathematical. There was no mathematical books in their house. On the other hand verbal ability is partially inate, partially nurture. Parents reading to kids. Lots of books around. Etc.

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

Everything we know about neuroscience says we can adapt to get better at any subject. The most important thing IMHO is that we encourage kids to have an interest in something, then the questions follow and then the improvement.

Within reason of course. Natural inheritance does actually have a role to play but yeah in general we can adapt and learn most things. There's an interesting thesis published somewhere on high performance athletes. The claim basically goes that coaching produces the best sports people. Natural talent doesn't cut it. It's coaching, guidance and circumstance. The last one, namely luck, plays a much bigger role than humans like to admit.

steddyeddy

Muise... wrote: »

So are you really going to plough your own furrow because you think the school system should be changed, or would you maybe participate in your own education and ask a teacher or consult a book for more information on the properties interactions of light and glass? Where will you find a teacher and a book? Where will you learn to read the book?

Sorry your creativity was stifled, but these questions and wonderings and researches happened all the time at my school - ordinary state primary and secondary.

You are going down some philosophical strawman route. I said simply the question requires no prior knowledge. Teachers should impart a desire to answer the question.

Burky126

Just to bring up an example of something common I found in Irish schools is whenever the teacher leaves the classroom for a few minutes and asks you to read ahead in a book. Especially if it's an unsupervised all boys classroom.

Of course no one's reading ahead. You left a class of boys alone to mess,talk amongst themselves and gave them a reason for exempting them from work. The ones who do read ahead can't focus at all and maybe distracted. Then the teacher comes back into the room and just expects you to understand what you were meant' to read. Sometimes,they wouldn't even go over it. If you didn't understand it on your own you were seen as stupid or a messer.

And this happened all the time when I was in school.

Frank Lee Midere

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I would indeed learn the required maths. I didn't say ignore previous wisdom nor did I say reject information. I said you don't need the information to come up with the question. You do need it to solve the question.

Great. But whether you are taught or self taught you are learning by instruction by teacher, book writer or both ( not rote - that means repeating verbatim what you read). You may be able to do that on your own, some people need someone looking over their shoulder.

Muise...

steddyeddy wrote: »

You are going down some philosophical strawman route. I said simply the question requires no prior knowledge. Teachers should impart a desire to answer the question.

And I said that most of my teachers did impart a desire to answer the question.

I think you were unlucky with the quality of the education you got, not the system you found it in.

steddyeddy

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Bad analogy. While anybody in reasonable health can run a marathon not everybody can do it quickly. Mathematical ability seems inate to me - the best two guys I went to school with were the sons of a plumber and a farmer. Neither parents were mathematical. There was no mathematical books in their house. On the other hand verbal ability is partially inate, partially nurture. Parents reading to kids. Lots of books around. Etc.

Well yes we have an innate aptitude for various skills (reasoning ect) but neuroscience has shown we can all move beyond the innate. People can and have trained themselves to recruit more brain power and make new neural connections co carry out complex calculations.

steddyeddy

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Great. But whether you are taught or self taught you are learning by instruction by teacher, book writer or both ( not rote - that means repeating verbatim what you read). You may be able to do that on your own, some people need someone looking over their shoulder.

Actually rote despite the technical meaning is very accurate when describing how science is taught in school.

Jimoslimos

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually it doesn't take genius or brains to do well in the current leaving cert. It takes rote learning. That's the point. We need less of it. I have read awful papers it's sort of my job thanks.

Encourage kids to ask questions is important imo.

It takes application to do well in the LC, or any examination for that matter. Those who apply themselves will inevitably do better in university and later life than those who don't. It serves as a good standard to colleges and employers to highlight the more attractive candidates. It says more about a person if they can motivate themselves to come out with a respectable mark in a subject they were weak at, than one who aces some and neglects those they disliked.

Encouraging kids to be inquisitive sounds great but in reality a balance is needed. Certainly in my school it would have been heavily disrupted by a few individuals taking the piss. Kids need structure (whether they think so or not) to help them learn.

Turtwig

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Bad analogy. While anybody in reasonable health can run a marathon not everybody can do it quickly. Mathematical ability seems inate to me - the best two guys I went to school with were the sons of a plumber and a farmer. Neither parents were mathematical. There was no mathematical books in their house. On the other hand verbal ability is partially inate, partially nurture. Parents reading to kids. Lots of books around. Etc.

The analogy is quite apt.

The skills to run a marathon are quite subtly gained but nonetheless it's a process one must follow. If one wants to learn to speak Math they have to actually follow a process to. Yes, some kids will be inclined towards math, but the reality is alot blurrier. Are some kids inclined to be artists? Yep. But, here's the rub, any adult can be taught how to be an artist or mathematican. It just requires a sh*t load of effort on their part in learning basic skills. Unlike in the case of the marathon where most people have the basic mobility skillls, these skills must be acquired either via the environment, innately or education. And, if you look at people who are 'poor' at maths, you find they can become equally as competent once they learn the basic skills. Or, if you look at adults awful at math who think they've got no art in them, a year or so of proper coaching later and that myth is dispelled. I'm not saying people'll be math or artistic geniuses. I'm saying they'll be bloody good at maths or arts. The expert requires the 10,000 hours or whatever the trope is.

Standford actually has a MOOC starting shortly on teaching Maths to the general public. It may interest you because the first week deals with the misconception that Maths is for a minor section of society.

Frank Lee Midere

Jernal wrote: »

Just on this.

It's a very weak line of reasoning. Would you say that because one person in the U.S can become supremely wealth, poverty and inequality aren't an issue? Just because Feynman exists doesn't mean the system is working the way it should be. It just means that Feynman exists.

If people are claiming that "creativity is stifled" by a system they need to prove it. I mentioned two names not one. I could have mentioned thousands. It's likely all geniuses were educated by the "rote " system. In fact that system was more rote in the 19th century and before. Memorise passages in Greek. Learn the times table. Name the 50 State capitals. Etc.

There has been a clear drop off in standards and per capita geniuses.

The other problem is that the supposed rote system has been largely done away with in many parts of the world, replaced with the very progressive everybody is a genius form of education. Which leads to very confident kids who can't find their country on a map.

Frank Lee Midere

Jernal wrote: »

The analogy is quite apt.

The skills to run a marathon are quite subtly gained but nonetheless it's a process one must follow. If one wants to learn to speak Math they have to actually follow a process to. Yes, some kids will be inclined towards math, but the reality is alot blurrier. Are some kids inclined to be artists? Yep. But, here's the rub, any adult can be taught how to be an artist or mathematican. It just requires a sh*t load of effort on their part in learning basic skills. Unlike in the case of the marathon where most people have the basic mobility skillls, these skills must be acquired either via the environment, innately or education. And, if you look at people who are 'poor' at maths, you find they can become equally as competent once they learn the basic skills. Or, if you look at adults awful at math who think they've got no art in them, a year or so of proper coaching later and that myth is dispelled. I'm not saying people'll be math or artistic geniuses. I'm saying they'll be bloody good at maths or arts. The expert requires the 10,000 hours or whatever the trope is.

Standford actually has a MOOC starting shortly on teaching Maths to the general public. It may interest you because the first week deals with the misconception that Maths is for a minor section of society.

Well the first week is an ideological claim. And even if it is true that people can become competant at high level mathematics with this course, they still need the course. Which means an impartation of knowledge. Which is largely what education is. The creativity can come later, not just understanding the maths but using it creatively.

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually rote despite the technical meaning is very accurate when describing how science is taught in school.

Science is taught rather farcically. Feynman actually has an interesting bit about in his memoir and his experiences on the school district board of education. Selecting 'textbooks'. He was somewhat ignorant of pedagogy though. He did make interesting points nonetheless.

Muise...

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

If people are claiming that "creativity is stifled" by a system they need to prove it. I mentioned two names not one. I could have mentioned thousands. It's likely all geniuses were educated by the "rote " system. In fact that system was more rote in the 19th century and before. Memorise passages in Greek. Learn the times table. Name the 50 State capitals. Etc.

There has been a clear drop off in standards and per capita geniuses.

The other problem is that the supposed rote system has been largely done away with in many parts of the world, replaced with the very progressive everybody is a genius form of education. Which leads to very confident kids who can't find their country on a map.

Yup.

Perhaps the old systems of education serve as a necessary test of creativity: if your imagination is strong enough to swim against the current, you'll be all the better for it. Even steddyeddy is now a scientist, well able to devise questions and test them (absolutely a creative act), despite what his school threw at him.

Turtwig

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Well the first week is an ideological claim. And even if it is true that people can become competant at high level mathematics with this course, they still need the course.

You still miss the point. The only reason everyone has a hope of running the marathon is because they move the muscles required to do so. The problem with math is that if you're not exposed to the way of thinking it seems abstract and alien. It's not an ideological claim. Blind studies show it again and again. Neuroplasticity plays a big role. We can forget skills too.

Certainly not competent at high level maths! That requires years of learning. High Level Maths from scratch is, arguably, a tougher skill than running a marathon. Because there is so many steps required for a person to take. First they got to grasp the basic reasoning and logic. Then they got the learn the rules and language. Then they got to expose themselves to the basic concepts one by one and move onto the nexts one only when they're comfortable with the previous. Slowly and slowy move towards more and more abstract **** until they get headaches.

steddyeddy

Guys I'm going to bed now but will post tomorrow. Just to say that this is not a teacher bashing thread. It's not a job I could do and most teachers do their best (I went to a bad school). I think the curriculum should be altered to allow teachers more freedom to impart a love of their subject to the kids. This will inspire kids to learn.