NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/physics/22281

Text File | 1993-01-08 | 3.9 KB | 90 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!henry.ece.cmu.edu!snyder
From: [e-mail] (John Snyder)
Subject: Re: Budding Physicist
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:45:11 GMT
Lines: 78

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Leigh Palmer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> writes:
>>You have a bright kid, howevere. It would be a shame if he will be
>>spoiled by the rotten American education system
>
>I've replied by mail to the original questioner. However I could not let this
>comment pass unchallenged. There is nothing rotten about the American
>educational system. I came through it as did most of the correspondents in this
>newsgroup, and I don't think we were badly served at all. I infer from your
>syntax and name that you did not, and that you are an immigrant to the United
>States, just as I am an immigrant to Canada. The "system" here is also not
>rotten, and it is substantially the same as that in the US. My children came
>through the Canadian system and they were not spoiled, either.
>
>The rot in this system probably resides much closer to home, among parents who
>expect that the schools should do the full task of educating their children for
>them. The person who asked the question originally is not such a parent, and I
>expect his son will make out quite well, thank you.
>
>The questioner is from a Canadian university, by the way, in case you had not
>noticed.
>
>Leigh


I'd like to share a few thoughts on the educational system:

I came through the American public educational system in the 60's and 70's
(graduated from high school in '73), so what I say may or may not
pertain to the system as it exists now...

I had both old math and new math, old teachers and young teachers,
"hip" teachers and "square" teachers.

Some teachers would tend to turn-off kids to learning.  They practiced
the "Shut Up, Sit-Down, and Do As I Say" method of education.  They
discouraged inquiry about anything other than the lesson we were
currently working on.

Others encouraged independent thought and discussion, and if a kid
was particularly interested in or good at something, encouraged him
to follow it up.

In general, I think the new math was better for someone interested
in math and science, but I also saw some shortcomings of it.

And I don't remember any strong correlation of age or "hipness"
with how good a teacher was.

The major potential problem that I saw was the way in elementary school
(grades 1-6), we had only one teacher per year for all subjects except
music, art, or foreign language, and even had the same
one for grades 1 and 2.  I think that there is a danger of a kid being
turned-off to school for good (or turned off to some subject for good)
with a bad teacher for a whole year or two years.  I believe in some
schools, this has changed, so that several teachers "team-teach"
several classes.

Some of the math and science teaching, in particular, was really
bad in elementary school.  Some was good.  My recollection was that
in any area of science that I was particularly interested, my
knowledge far outstripped what we were being taught in class.
I learned from reading a lot, watching T.V., and I was also lucky
enough to grow up in a family of scientists.

So, I would say that if a kid has a particularly bad elementary school
teacher (or particularly bad at science or math), a parent should
make sure that the kid gets enough outside input to keep him
interested and to learn from.  (I would point out that the parent
need not be a scientist--there's plenty of books, T.V. documentaries,
magazines, project sets, science museums, and national parks out there)




John
[e-mail]