My guess is you're reading whole tomes more into my remark than is warranted. There are times when it's wise just to take a remark at face value.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Combatting the culture of ignorance
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
My guess is you're reading whole tomes more into my remark than is warranted. There are times when it's wise just to take a remark at face value.
The last part is certainly true, if the evidence has even a sliver of truth.
A theory why this view exists....
If one is smart, this is a largely innate quality.
This is discomforting because it suggests that some people are inherently better than others.
But hard work is a choice.
No one is any better than anyone else.
This fits better with the philosophy of every participant getting a trophy.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Ignorant masses make excellent consumers and an easily swayed electorate.
In my experience, labeling kids is quite common. I would say that a lot of kids will NOT equate "smart" with "hard working". Far better to label a kid as "hard working" if that's the characteristic you want to support. (Which I think IS what we want to support.)
Have you ever read any of Edward Bernay's books?
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
If that teacher is capable sure, but politics has created a learning situation in several states where teachers are not capable. A large majority of American teachers do not accept or understand evolution, yet they're expected to teach it.
Alright, I didn't catch that last line
I was with you up until that last line. Now of course you had to go and bring the complex topic of motivation into the discussion. "Participation trophies" are a different sort of bad teaching, that which embraces the use of extrinsic motivation. Perhaps another thread is called for here, but briefly (and again, I'm not making this up), in almost all teaching situations, handing out badges, points or trophies is a bad idea in educational contexts.
Again agreed. But the OP listed "one way" that we could make a difference. It was never claimed that this one change could stop all the problems that our impending oligarchy is creating.
So perhaps you're arguing that politics is the MAIN culprit? Perhaps. I'd certainly agree that "oligarchy" is the source of most of our problems.
I wasn't aware of this. Consider that only a fraction of teachers are biology teachers, and only a portion of those biology teachers would be expected to teach evolution. Based on this relevant sample frame, how many accept and understand evolution? Do you have a study you can cite for me?
I ask because this claim seems to contradict what I know about how teaching licensure works, at least in my state. I work with some students who aspire to be teachers, and they are required to have basic subject competency to get certified to teach a particular subject. They will not have certification in all topics, unless they want to spend well more than four years on their college education. As for accepting something, to my knowledge this is never required, nor should it be. One does not have to agree with something to teach it, and I wager many teachers would be out of a job were this the case.
Is it so bad always?Alright, I didn't catch that last line
I was with you up until that last line. Now of course you had to go and bring the complex topic of motivation into the discussion. "Participation trophies" are a different sort of bad teaching, that which embraces the use of extrinsic motivation. Perhaps another thread is called for here, but briefly (and again, I'm not making this up), in almost all teaching situations, handing out badges, points or trophies is a bad idea in educational contexts.
I don't think so.
But it requires great care in doing so.
I promise this isn't my "ad hoc reckoning"
To oversimplify slightly, you should never provide extrinsic motivation (badges and so on), for skills that can be intrinsically motivating. For example you should never give a kid a "reading" badge. On the other hand, there are a few things that one ought to commited to memory. Not many, but a few. Multiplication tables would be an example. I wouldn't advocate giving a badge for memorizing multiplication tables, but it would be a situation that wouldn't trouble me too much. Tasks like cleaning toilets or working on an assembly line are okay places to use extrinsic motivation, but that's really about it.
The theory here is called the "overjustification effect", and again, this is mainstream, not "woo".
From wikipedia: The overjustification effect occurs when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sometimes I wonder if it's not so much ignorance than our lack of incentive to learn and move forth. So much of our society is now based on entitlement and political correctness that it essentally snuffs out motivation and drive to anything worthwhile and productive anymore.
While they aren'd badges per se, grades & scores offer rewards.I promise this isn't my "ad hoc reckoning"
To oversimplify slightly, you should never provide extrinsic motivation (badges and so on), for skills that can be intrinsically motivating. For example you should never give a kid a "reading" badge. On the other hand, there are a few things that one ought to commited to memory. Not many, but a few. Multiplication tables would be an example. I wouldn't advocate giving a badge for memorizing multiplication tables, but it would be a situation that wouldn't trouble me too much. Tasks like cleaning toilets or working on an assembly line are okay places to use extrinsic motivation, but that's really about it.
The theory here is called the "overjustification effect", and again, this is mainstream, not "woo".
From wikipedia: The overjustification effect occurs when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task.
Every student is generally aware of how everyone else is doing.
Is this bad?
I'm personally OK with incentives provided by competition.
But I also know that some hate it.
(This is great, it provides me a wonderful excuse to not go out and clean stalls
)Ideally students should be assessed based on their relative progress. People who won the genetic intelligence lottery "ought" to be given harder challenges to progress through.
To answer your first question, a single grading scheme applied to all is "bad". Our education systems is often driven not by what's useful to learn, but by what's easy to assess. The tail wags the dog.
Your thoughts about competition are interesting - I'm gonna look into that. Off the cuff I'd say that competition is healthy for optional activities, but not for mandated activities.
I know the feeling.(This is great, it provides me a wonderful excuse to not go out and clean stalls
Posters here can be so.....oh....you mean horse stalls!
We had "tracking" in my school after elementary.
This system had its advantages & disadvantages.
On this I heartily agree.
Competition served me well.
I liked crushing my fellow students!
But I didn't mind losing to my betters either.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Hard work is still valued. However, what you often find is people asking "what's the point?" when it comes to academia. They see science as this fancy concept of the ivory tower that serves no real or practical functions in their daily lives. They see no need in learning math, learning theory, or anything else that requires learning and thinking, because work is valued over thinking.
And even the athletic performances we value are of the lowest quality, such as how football is massively popular but requires little athleticism, but gymnastics are massively unpopular and require major amounts of athletic talent.
It's not just that, it's that there is so much red tape that many teachers find themselves in a position where they are unable to be effective teachers. They can't teach thinking because they have to make sure their students can pass a bombardment of tests because their pay is based on their student's test performances. If they want to amend and enhance the standards, they may not be able to do so without involving a bureaucracy. And we often find that the legal standards for teaching are just too low. We find school funding linked with property taxes. Sometimes a teacher can be very effective, but they can't be effective because their job is wrapped up in red tape.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Fair points Shadow Wolf
Shadow Wolf said:
The fact that we typically don't answer the "what's the point?" question in our education system is a real problem. And there are various fine solutions (such as Montessori), but sadly our education system tends NOT to value answering the very valid "what's the point?" question.
As far as "work valued over thinking"... maybe? It strikes me that closer to the truth is that "thinking is mocked".
As far as the bureaucracy goes, no doubt our teachers are constrained by bureaucracy and over-aggressive reliance on tests. But properly trained teachers can succeed even in our teacher-hostile environment.
To me, the more important problem is that very little of a teacher's training involves learning theory and "how to teach". Far too much of a teacher's college curriculum is devoted to the bureaucracy you mention. So it's a bureaucratic double whammy.
The fact that we typically don't answer the "what's the point?" question in our education system is a real problem. And there are various fine solutions (such as Montessori), but sadly our education system tends NOT to value answering the very valid "what's the point?" question.
As far as "work valued over thinking"... maybe? It strikes me that closer to the truth is that "thinking is mocked".
As far as the bureaucracy goes, no doubt our teachers are constrained by bureaucracy and over-aggressive reliance on tests. But properly trained teachers can succeed even in our teacher-hostile environment.
To me, the more important problem is that very little of a teacher's training involves learning theory and "how to teach". Far too much of a teacher's college curriculum is devoted to the bureaucracy you mention. So it's a bureaucratic double whammy.
Last edited:
'Americans feel entitled' is always a phrase that makes me feel uneasy. It smacks of traditionalist-style propaganda which cites the 'old days' as full of better people with the same opportunities, when reality for many folks who don't succeed is that they want to work hard but don't have the opportunity, for many different reasons. So it becomes just a ground of blame gaming that doesn't actually help anything.