school years
Lucy Kemnitzer
system of their country (or region, if it breaks down like that)?
Here's the general USian thing, with common variants:
age
2-1/2 to 5 preschool: only some children go
5-6 kindergarten: almost universal, since the 50s
5-8 or 9 primary school : 1st, 2nd,3rd grades
7-11 or 12 elementary school 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th
9 -11 or 12 upper elementary school: 4th, 5th, 6th
junior high school or middle school can have any combination of the
grades 5th through 9th. It usually has two or three of those years.
Here are the most common arrangements I've encountered:
11-14 middle school: 6th, 7th, 8th
12-14 junior high school: 7th, 8th
12-15 junior high school:7th, 8th, 9th
14-18 high school: 9th, 10th, 11th,12th
except where middle school includes 9th.
In high school, the years are also labelled freshman, sophomore,
junior, and senior.
Middle school/junior high school and high school are also referred to
together as secondary school.
Now, I'm expecting to see the Italian, Australian, Canadian, English,
Dutch, Croatian, and German systems, at the very least.
Lucy Kemnitzer
AKNicolle
year or so now) is as follows:
age
3-5 kindergarten
6-12 primary school (may also be split into junior primary for 6-8 / primary)
13-17 high school
High school has no naming for individual years, other than "Year 8" through
"Year 12". Years 11-12 (school years this is) are often known as "Matric" since
that's when exams start to come into play. Most kids these days are 18 (legal
adult) by the time they finish high school (I don't think age 21 has any legal
meaning here).
Cheers,
Andrew
Jamie Rosen
>
> Now, I'm expecting to see the Italian, Australian, Canadian, English,
> Dutch, Croatian, and German systems, at the very least.
Here's the way it breaks down in the province of Ontario, in Canada. Ages
are approximate, since some people (obviously) get left behind or jumped
ahead, or are just born at different times of year; I've tried to use a bit of
overlap to represent that.
2.5-5 preschool/nursery school
5 junior kindergarten
6 senior kindergarten
6,7,8 grades 1-3 (aka "primary" grades)
9,10,11 grades 4-6 (aka "junior" grades)
12,13 grades 7-8 (aka "intermediate" or, less often, "junior high")
14-18 grades 9-12 (aka high school/secondary school)
18-19 OAC (phased out after this year; until now, we had a 5-year high
school programme, although you could "fast track" by taking more courses
per year and get out in 4, or just get out without your OACs and not go to
university)
After that, university or college (the latter offers degrees, the former
diplomas) or some other path, like work. :)
This is only for Ontario; most of the rest of Canada, I believe, has a
four-year high school programme. Quebec, however, stops after grade 11,
and then has a 2 year "CEGEP" or junior college sort of deal.
Someone will hopefully now correct me on whichever part(s) I got wrong. :)
--
Jamie Rosen's e-book _Vessel of Heaven_ is now available from Jintsu Etexts
Check it out at http://www.eggplant-productions.com/jintsu
Nicola Browne
news:3ea939c...@cnews.newsguy.com
>> Now, I'm expecting to see the Italian, Australian, Canadian, English,
> Dutch, Croatian, and German systems, at the very least.
>
UK ( excluding Scotland)
State
4-5 reception
5-6 yr1
6 -7 yr2 this is key stage 1 or infants
7-8 yr3
8-9 yr4
9-10 yr 5
10-11 yr 6 this is key stage 2 or juniors.
Usually, though not always, infants and juniors are together at
Primary School some state schools also have a nursery stage
for under 4s, though more usually state nurseries
are on separate sites.
There are some middle schools that go from 11-13 usually known as
yr 7 to 9.
Secondary schools whether comprehensive or grammar go from age 11- 16
(yrs 7-11)or age 11- 18.They can be called High Schools but often
aren't. Soem regions have sixth form colleges for kids form 16-18
and some areas have a mixture of several systems sort of co existing.
(I am a bit vague on which ages correlate with which key stages
because these have been intod recently.I think key stage 3 is age 14)
What complicates matters further is the private sector which is
significant in the UK, particularly in London and the SE.
This tends to have (for boys) pre prep ages 4-7 preparatory schools
ages 7-13 and public schools (which are private) 13-18. Because many
former grammar schools are now private(ie fee paying) this means that
some schools for boys have two intakes one at 11 from the state
sector and one at 13 from the private sector.
Girls private secondary schools seem to accept girls at 11 only.
I'm sure if any of this is wrong someone will correct me.
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> As I asked in another thread, could people post the school year naming
> system of their country (or region, if it breaks down like that)?
Fairly simple here, we've got
Kindergarten (not mandatory and often impossible to get into)
Ages 3-6
Elementary School
1st age 6
2nd age 7
3rd age 8
4th age 9
5th age 10
Elementary licence examination (more or less perfuctory)
You can be fail each class and forced to take it again, though I
understand it doesn't happen very frequentaly nowadays
Then you go on to
Middle School
1st age 11
2nd age 12
3rd age 13
Another licence examination, a tad harder, at the end of the middle
school.
This concludes the mandatory years at school. From then on, it's
voluntary (though still more or less free: there are very low fees and
you can get out of paying them if you're low income or academically all
right).
We go on to Superior School, which is broken down into a variety of
different kinds of school. The more academically prestigious are the
Lyceaums, Classical and Scientific. In both you study a lot of
literature, history: slightly more Latin in the Classical, slightly more
Maths in the Scientific; less foreign language (one) in Classical, more
in Scientific; you still study Greek in Classical. Then there are the
Linguistic (two or three foreign languages), Artistic (obvious)
Lyceaums, slightly less prestigious. Lower still are the technical
schools: accountancy, geometer (sort of engeneer without a degree);
lower still are the shop schools.
All of these are structured into a five-year course: at the end you have
a big State Examination. From all of them you can accede to any
University course; the accountancy and shop schools don't give you some
of the basics to University, but you can make up for them if you're
committed enough.
Superior School ("Secondary School")
1st 14 (4th gymnasium in the Classical Lyceaum)
2nd 15 (5th gymnasium)
3rd 16 (1st Lyceum in the CL)
4th 17 (2nd Lyceaum ")
5th 18 (3rd Lyceaum)
From there you go to University. University typically lasts four years -
six for Medicine, five I think for Engeneering. Typically very few
people manage to complete the courses in the allotted time. University
is, like all the other schools, overwhelmingly public; while the middle
and superior private schools are commonly the place where you dump
high-class dorks to try to get them through the system, and are
consequantely thought very lowly of, private University tends to be very
good, very expensive (Public U used to be a lot cheaper, but still is by
several order of magnitude cheaper than the US colleges), and
concentrate on Economics and management only.
University is hard to go through because it offers very high-quality
lectures and demands very high standards, but offers next to nothing in
terms of support and infrastructure; no tutors, for example, no
boarding, and even libraries are somewhat difficult to access. You can
drop out without anybody noticing or caring. You go to lectures, study
on your own privately purchased books in your rented room or your
parent's house if you live in the same town as the U, then go to take
the corresponding examination, written or oral or both (multiple answer
tests are rare: typically you're supposed to solve a problem or explain
some theory). The examinations should be held by three professors, or
one professors and two assistants, but it's often just one professor,
which you might actually talk to for the first and last time. You either
fail or receive a vote between 18 and 30, occasionally 30 cum laude.
After you've completed the requisite set of exams (some of whose you can
choose, the extent to which you can varying from faculty to faculty,
with humanities being the freer - in Medical School I could choose the
Complementary of the second year which you were told had better be
Immunology anyway) you have to approach a professor and do a
dissertation with him or her, which you present in front of a commission
of eleven professors (with great ceremony). The quality of your
presentantion determines your final vote, that is, how much your
baseline is augmented, to a maximum of 110 cum laude.
That's a degree equivalent to graduate school, more or less. At that
point you can try and stay in university, working for some professor,
and enter into a doctorate program, working towards something like a
Ph.D.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@despammed.com - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Charlie Allery
Nicola Browne wrote in message
<45f2355b4f526b5293...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
This matches my understanding.
>What complicates matters further is the private sector which is
>significant in the UK, particularly in London and the SE.
>This tends to have (for boys) pre prep ages 4-7 preparatory schools
>ages 7-13 and public schools (which are private) 13-18. Because many
>former grammar schools are now private(ie fee paying) this means that
>some schools for boys have two intakes one at 11 from the state
>sector and one at 13 from the private sector.
>Girls private secondary schools seem to accept girls at 11 only.
>
>I'm sure if any of this is wrong someone will correct me.
I went to independent (now "public" i.e on the Headmaster's conference) or
private school. We had 7 - 11 junior school (prep equivalent) 12 - 14 middle
school and 15 - 18 Senior school, but middle and senior schools were run as
a single body with a single headteacher. Naming of years? Well, the old
method was ... Junior school: Lower one (7) upper one (8) lower two (9)
upper two (10) Middle School 3rd form (11) 4th form (12) Removes (13) Senior
school Lower 5th (14) Upper 5th (15) Lower 6th (16) Upper 6th (17). Of
course it all fell apart when they renamed the junior school to match state
conventions and called the years 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th forms, because we
went back into the 3rd form in the middle school. We took pupils at all
ages, but biggest intake was at 7 and 11.
After this, we have Universities which mostly do 3 year degrees (18 - 21).
Charlie
Boudewijn Rempt
> Now, I'm expecting to see the Italian, Australian, Canadian, English,
> Dutch, Croatian, and German systems, at the very least.
>
I'll leave the Dutch system to Irina...
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
Irina Rempt
> Lucy Kemnitzer wrote:
>
>> Now, I'm expecting to see the Italian, Australian, Canadian, English,
>> Dutch, Croatian, and German systems, at the very least.
>>
>
> I'll leave the Dutch system to Irina...
Ah. I thought when I saw the header "hey, Boudewijn has already done
it!" but here goes:
2 1/2 - 4 peuterspeelzaal ("toddler play group") - socializing,
structured play
Not mandatory yet, but there's talk of making it so to catch language
problems, especially in children of immigrant families. Our kids didn't
really need it for socializing or language development, but they
basically thought it was *fun* (and so did I; it excused me from craft
things).
4-6 used to be "kleuterschool" but is now the first two years of
"basisschool" (basic school); still considered a separate
entity
This is groep 1-2 (in some schools 0-2 as the freshly four-year-olds are
put in a separate group until the start of the next school year, when
they will probably still be four as most kids start on their fourth
birthday or up to ten days before).
Onderbouw: 6-8, groep 3-4
Reading starts in groep 3, occasionally in the top of groep 2 (young
six-year-olds).
Middenbouw: 8-10, groep 5-6
Bovenbouw: 10-12, groep 7-8
Some schools take 5-8 together as "bovenbouw" and don't have a
"middenbouw".
English is taught from groep 8, sometimes 7. Aptitude testing for
secondary school takes place in groep 8.
The secondary school system has changed so much since I left it
twenty-seven years <eek!> ago (and our kids are all still in elementary
school) that I don't dare say anything about it; if nobody else knows,
I'll look it up after Sunday (my current case of Holy Week has just
come to a head).
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/~irina/foundobjects/ Latest: 11-Mar-2003
Jaana Heino
> Now, I'm expecting to see the Italian, Australian, Canadian, English,
> Dutch, Croatian, and German systems, at the very least.
Finnish:
Little kids:
0-6 Lastentarha / päiväkoti (kindergarten?)
6 Esikoulu (pre-school)
Primary education:
7-12 Peruskoulu, luokat 1-6, "ala-aste" (comprehensive school?,
grades 1-6, "lower grades")
13-15 Peruskoulu, luokat 7-9, "ylä-aste (same, "upper grades")
Secondary education:
16-18 Lukio (high school?)
16-18 Ammattikoulu (vocational school?)
Primary education is free for everyone; practically everyone attends,
though it's not actually mandatory (acquiring some equivalent schooling
or trying until you are of some age which I forget - 16? - is, though).
Pre-school is not mandatory. Most children enter peruskoulu in the fall
of the year of their seventh birthday, though the year before and year
after are also possible if this feels like a good idea considering the
child's social and intellectual development.
Comprehensive school was divided to lower and higher comprehensive by
law, but it changed just a little time ago. Today you could find any
grades together, though the old dividion of grades 1-6 and 7-9 still is
prevalent in many places. Other options I've heard of have had 1-2 and
3-9 and all 1-9 together. I'm quite sure other combinations exist, too.
Lukio is an all-round education school, originally preparatory to
Universities, but currently a more general schooling. About 70 % of the
population goes there - I think, not sure - and almost all of the rest
to different vocational schools. (Again, not mandatory to take either.)
From lukio you can continue to universities. There is also a school
system "ranking" sort of between lukio/vocational school and
universities, called ammattikorkeakoulu (literally "vocational
university"); I am not totally sure if you can enter those straight from
comprehensive or if you have to take some secondary school first.
--
Jaana Heino "Power corrupts, but we
ja...@iki.fi still need electricity."
Catja Pafort
> As I asked in another thread, could people post the school year naming
> system of their country (or region, if it breaks down like that)?
<6 yo: Kindergarten (no mandatory; when I went there was no
reading/writing involved; and IIRC not a lot of guided activities
6-10: Primary School (Starting at Year One, and numbered from there on)
11/12: Haupt-und Realschule (practical track)[Years 5/6]
11/12 Gymnasium (academic track) [Year 5/6]
13-15: Hauptschule [Years 7-9] (practical track, earliest you may leave
school, although there is mandatory schooling in apprenticeships.
Getting a job on this track is very difficult.)
13-16: Realschule [Year 7-10] (still geared towards practical careers,
more difficult examn. You also aquire this automatically after passing
year ten on the Gymnasium track; no seperate examination necessary)
13-19: Gymnasium [Year 7-13] This ends with the Abitur which allows you
to go to university. Some subjects (medicine, law?) require seperate
entrance examns. Otherwise you have to pick two main subjects, two other
subjects (one written, one oral examn); most of the other subjects
you've taken (almost everything remains compulsory) can be used to make
up the final mark; I think it's 1/3 examns or something like that.
Nobody is going to ask you for subjects, and, like me, doing English and
Biology for main subjects and going to University to do History and
Geography is perfectly normal and acceptable.
Catja
Lucy Kemnitzer
What I understand from this is that at about age 12, you decide
whether you're going to be a janitor, an auto mechanic, or a lawyer.
Is there a provision for people who get tuned in to academics at a
later age?
Lucy Kemnitzer
Ross Smith
> As I asked in another thread, could people post the school year naming
> system of their country (or region, if it breaks down like that)?
New Zealand:
Before age 5: Kindergarten or Preschool. Not compulsory, and I don't
know if there's a minimum age. When I was that age (1960s) it wasn't
very common, but I gather these days most kids spend a year or so in
kindergarten.
School is compulsory from age 6 to 15; practically everybody starts at
age 5. The correspondence between ages and classes below is
approximate, of course; pupils sometimes skip or repeat years. The
names of the classes are traditional and used by most schools, but not
officially mandated; some schools today simply use year numbers.
Age 5-11: Primary School, consisting of Primer 1 to Primer 4, then
Standard 1 to Standard 4. It's usual to start school partway through
the year (on or near your 5th birthday), and to go through the four
Primer classes in less than 4 years.
Age 12-13: Intermediate School, consisting of Form 1 and 2. In smaller
towns or rural areas this is often combined with the local primary or
high school instead of being a separate school.
Age 14-18: High School or College, consisting of Form 3 to Form 7. Form
5 ends with the most important exam of your school life; it was called
School Certificate when I took it but I think it has a different name
now. Failing your "School C" (or leaving before taking it) is generally
considered a sign that your working life will consist largely of "Fries
with that, sir?"
Many pupils leave school after Form 5. Mostly only those who are
intending, or at least considering, going on to tertiary education
bother with Form 6 (which ends with the University Entrance exam; as
the name suggests, a pass is required in order to enter university,
although not for most other tertiary institutes). Form 7 is largely for
terminal academic geeks like me. :-)
--
Ross Smith ......... r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......... Auckland, New Zealand
Our landscape raped by different armies
Soldier-slaves who have no faces
Control our ways and lives completely
Our minds are torn, time left its traces
-- L'Ame Immortelle
Julia Jones
<akni...@aol.comhey.com> writes
>The Australian system from when I went to school in the 80s (it may vary by a
>year or so now) is as follows:
"The system in some Australian states" - there is some variation. More
years ago than I like to think of, I encountered:
primary: Grades 1-6
high school: Grades 7-10 with exams for School Certificate in Grade 10
HSC/Matric: Grades 11&12 with exams for Higher School Certificate both
(or all, but typically two) years.
Except the private schools then did their own thing anyway.
--
Julia Jones (who has been through too many educational systems...)
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not send
unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org
address.
Neil Barnes
news:b8c4d1$g41$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
> After this, we have Universities which mostly do 3 year
> degrees (18 - 21).
Daughter tells me many/most language courses require an extra
year in a country where the selected language is spoken. UK
universities rarely encourage the 'extra year to get a Masters'
that US universities prefer; over here thirties or over is
preferred as a lot of the course work is based on your real-life
employment.
And the Open University which does degrees of varying lengths:
25-32 and 42-whenever in my case :)
Degrees are set by the number of credits you get rather than how
long it takes to get them. I think the limit is about ten years.
--
Neil
Catja Pafort
<snip German school system>
> What I understand from this is that at about age 12, you decide
> whether you're going to be a janitor, an auto mechanic, or a lawyer.
>
> Is there a provision for people who get tuned in to academics at a
> later age?
There are two ways. If you happened to go to a primary school that
didn't suit you and you do very well after a couple of months, you can
just slip in sideways into the gymnasium. If you decide you want to try
Gymnasium after year seven, there are special schools that will cater to
you; those pupils usually slide back a year or two later into
mainstream. If you decide that you want to have your Abitur after you
finished year ten, there are special schools and evening classes.
It happens, and from what I've heard it's reasonably easy to achieve if
you want it; but it's rare. Getting into the Gymnasium trail of
secondary education is reasonably easy; it's decided between teachers
and parents (the teachers will make a recommendation, the parents, often
together with the kids, will make the final decision) and many kids with
so-so marks will 'try' it. Many decide in forms seven or eight that the
increasing workload is not for them and drop back to Realschule where
they tend to do very well and thus get a good final examn; others decide
to hang on until they finished year ten.
I completely forgot to mention that there are comprehensive schools that
cater for all three tracks; they are reasonably rare and don't have the
best of reputation.
One thing that does work well is that until the very end - year eleven -
you do not need to decide what two main subjects you want to take for
your Abitur; and you can decide the other two examination subjects in
late year twelve.I had a horrible maths teacher in year eleven, looked
forward to dropping maths after year twelve (you couldn't earlier); had
a brilliant maths teacher in year twelve, loved it, and did my written
examn (with good results). I pity the poor kids in Britain who have to
know much earlier what A-levels they want to take - and whose choice of
A-level then determines to what seems a reasonable degree, what
university courses they can take.
Catja
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> One thing that does work well is that until the very end - year eleven -
> you do not need to decide what two main subjects you want to take for
> your Abitur; and you can decide the other two examination subjects in
> late year twelve.I had a horrible maths teacher in year eleven, looked
> forward to dropping maths after year twelve (you couldn't earlier); had
> a brilliant maths teacher in year twelve, loved it, and did my written
> examn (with good results). I pity the poor kids in Britain who have to
> know much earlier what A-levels they want to take - and whose choice of
> A-level then determines to what seems a reasonable degree, what
> university courses they can take.
We don't have that at all in Italy, and the American system of
do-it-yourself curricula sounds very weird to us. We don't get to choose
our subjects. Once you choose a secondary school, you follow their
curriculum. The class is also fixed, and it stays in the same classroom
for the whole year, with the professors visiting the classroom they
teach for that hour and moving around. You also have, bar people getting
sent back to retake the year, the same classmates for the whole set of
school years: one class in elementary, one in middle, one in secondary.
This tends to develop strong bonds between the pupils, and there is much
more an atmosphere of collusion between them than of competition. Class
tests are routinely shared among the class under the nose of the
professor, for example, in various ingenious ways.
Which is why bullyism is quite rare. Not inexistent: and recently much
on the increase, especially in elementary school. But there's nothing
like the stories of victimization that seems to be the rule in other
countries.
We also don't have sports. I mean, we have two hours of enforced gym
every week throughout the curricula until University, but the whole
system of school teams is totally non-existent, and no status is
attached to beeing good at sports - it's something you do out of school.
Same goes for University. There is a University Sports Organization but
it's not very important and has no impact on your academic status. My
contact with it was that it organized very nice week-long skiing
vacation at competitive prices, and that I went to one of their judo
classes once. But the teacher only seemed interested in selecting
outstanding pupils for competition and not paying much attention to the
rest of us, so I got fed up and left. The private karate class I had was
much better.
Brian M. Scott
<nailed_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Charlie Allery" <cha...@charlieallery.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:b8c4d1$g41$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
>> After this, we have Universities which mostly do 3 year
>> degrees (18 - 21).
>Daughter tells me many/most language courses require an extra
>year in a country where the selected language is spoken. UK
>universities rarely encourage the 'extra year to get a Masters'
>that US universities prefer; over here thirties or over is
>preferred as a lot of the course work is based on your real-life
>employment.
The U.S. master's degree is a lot more complicated than that. As
a minor point, it's very likely to be two years, not one. More
important, there's a huge difference from one subject to another.
In some fields the master's degree is the normal professional
qualification, so it's a terminal degree. Some people will go
into a master's program directly after getting a bachelor's
degree; others will acquire the master's later as an extra
qualification, often very specifically in order to qualify for a
higher salary or a more senior position. In other fields it's
just a step on the way to a PhD, and perhaps a consolation prize
for those who don't make it all the way.
In any case there's typically a definite break after the BA or
BS, even for those who immediately go into a graduate program.
Those students who attend four-year colleges have to go elsewhere
for graduate work even if they pursue the master's immediately
after getting the bachelor's degree. Even those whose
undergraduate institutions also award graduate degrees typically
have to apply to and be accepted by their schools' graduate
programs, and many of them will choose to go elsewhere for
graduate work anyway.
[...]
Brian
Catja Pafort
> We don't get to choose
> our subjects. Once you choose a secondary school, you follow their
> curriculum.
We had a little choice from year nine onwards - religion or ethics; and
while first language is determined by the school, second and third (or
even whether you want to take a third) is determined by the pupil. The
choices are very restricted - first usually is English, second French or
Latin, third Latin or French, maybe Spanish, anything else is a special
school thing.
In eleven, the choice becomes wider and you have to choose two subjects
for more intensive courses, and here is where the classes get resolved
and mixed about more, so that you can pick either of two maths teachers
etc. After year twelve, you can pick things like two out of three in the
sciences, drop maths *or* physics, and various weird and very
complicated choices more - but all of the main subjects (German,
English, Maths) cannot be dropped earlier. You also must do sports of
some sorts (although variety was fairly good as the last two years take
those courses together) and you can't get rid of all the arts/soft
topics like religion/languages either; just *some* of them.
> The class is also fixed, and it stays in the same classroom
> for the whole year, with the professors visiting the classroom they
> teach for that hour and moving around.
Indeed. It makes far more sense to move one person than thirty; although
art and sciences do have specialised rooms.
>You also have, bar people getting
> sent back to retake the year, the same classmates for the whole set of
> school years: one class in elementary, one in middle, one in secondary.
> This tends to develop strong bonds between the pupils, and there is much
> more an atmosphere of collusion between them than of competition. Class
> tests are routinely shared among the class under the nose of the
> professor, for example, in various ingenious ways.
>
> Which is why bullyism is quite rare. Not inexistent: and recently much
> on the increase, especially in elementary school. But there's nothing
> like the stories of victimization that seems to be the rule in other
> countries.
It happens (I was bullied at school) but the teachers don't turn the
other way. When I was at school, there was also very little violence -
kids beating each other up in the playground, yes, but no knives or
guns. Even in inner-city schools that sort of thing is rare. Or, at
least, 'was'.
> We also don't have sports. I mean, we have two hours of enforced gym
> every week throughout the curricula until University, but the whole
> system of school teams is totally non-existent, and no status is
> attached to beeing good at sports - it's something you do out of school.
Good at sports was like good at maths or music - some people do this,
others do other things.
> Same goes for University. There is a University Sports Organization but
> it's not very important and has no impact on your academic status.
University sports clubs in Germany allow access to things you otherwise
mightn't do - I did fencing, and was a member of the riding club (where
team competitions mean weekends away on *very* equal footing for
everyone, a long party with a bit of sport thrown in) - aand yes,
there's a national event, too, but mainly it's an excuse to party.
Funny, that. Who'd have thought it of students.
Catja
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> > Same goes for University. There is a University Sports Organization but
> > it's not very important and has no impact on your academic status.
>
> University sports clubs in Germany allow access to things you otherwise
> mightn't do - I did fencing, and was a member of the riding club (where
> team competitions mean weekends away on *very* equal footing for
> everyone, a long party with a bit of sport thrown in) - aand yes,
> there's a national event, too, but mainly it's an excuse to party.
Well, yes: if I had decided to do fencing, I'd have gone to the ESU.
It's right in front of my home, among other things. But I'm still not
sure my hateful ex-lover has truly left it - he used to do sabre.
James William Moar
Scottish System. Possibly contains Orkney-centric information, since
that's where I did Primary and Secondary school:
<5 Playgroup/preschool/kindergarten. I think the government's been getting
more excited about these than they were when I was there.
5-12 Primary School. The different years are numbered "Primary 1" to
"Primary 7". My schools were small enough that pupils from several years
were taught in the same classroom. Some places might break this down more,
but where I was, all 7 years were taught in the same building.
12-18 Secondary School. In the first two years (Usually referred to as
First Year and Second Year, though the terms S1 and S2 were also used),
everyone follows the same schedule, with a large list of subjects.
The third and fourth year are taken up by study for Standard Grades
(equivalent of O-Levels in England and Wales). Pupils do up to about 8,
usually, which requires some specialisation. There's also some streaming
of pupils. Exactly how much probably varies from school to school, but
the exams are split into three difficulty levels, Foundation (easiest),
General and Credit (hardest). Foundation papers could give you a grade 5
or 6, General papers a 3 or 4, and Credit a 1 or 2, with your highest
grade being taken as your final one. The grades also have a coursework
component.
In our exams, everyone did the General Paper, as well as either the Credit
or Foundation as appropriate (I forget if that was the way it was done
everywhere, or just locally). Getting mostly Credit passes would suggest
that a pupil would continue to Higher Education, getting mostly Foundation
passes that they would leave after Standard Grade. At my school, pupils
who mostly did Foundation-level classes were given the not exactly
affectionate name of 'foondies'.
After Standard Grade, pupils could leave, or continue on to do Highers in
Fifth Year. This part's changed a bit since I was there, in ways I haven't
paid full attention to. When I was around, students usually did up to five
Highers (those doing less might fill up the time with more vocational
modules). Highers were less intense than England's A-levels, since they
only ran one year instead of two, and students did a wider set of
subjects. The final grade was between A-C for passes, with D as a
consolation-prize grade and F for fail. Only one set of exam papers this
time round, and again a coursework component. Three C grades is probably
about the minimum to get you into a university, and most courses require
more -- for popular courses at prestigious universities, even candidates
with 5 A grades will be carefully vetted.
It wasn't compulsory to only do Highers in the subjects where you got
Standard Grades, though it helps. I did Higher Biology without a Standard
Grade.
Sixth Year is, again, optional, with many students going straight to
further or higher education after Fifth Year. Students could take Highers
they didn't get to do first time round, as well as Sixth Year Studies
which convert Highers into rough equivalents to A-levels in a subject.
Same grading system for those as Highers.
After all that, there are four years of University. It's three years in
England, but otherwise the system's pretty much the same, absent certain
issues about tuition fees. Scottish students at Scottish Universities get
exempted from a 1,100-pound-a-year fee which others have to pay, and which
is the only *direct* payment for the University course.
--
James Moar
David Friedman
ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
Comments on various interesting stuff in Anna's post:
> We don't have that at all in Italy, and the American system of
> do-it-yourself curricula sounds very weird to us. We don't get to choose
> our subjects.
At the high school level, at least when I was there, you don't have a
lot of freedom to choose, although you do have some. There's much more
in college, especially the last two years.
> Once you choose a secondary school, you follow their
> curriculum. The class is also fixed, and it stays in the same classroom
> for the whole year, with the professors visiting the classroom they
> teach for that hour and moving around.
You use "professor" for secondary school teachers. Is it the same term
used for teachers at the university? Does it reflect a comparable
status? In the U.S. context I don't think I have ever heard a high
school teacher called a professor. Although I expect there is an overlap
in salary between well paid high school teachers and poorly paid
professors, "professor" is generally seen as a higher status title.
At a slight tangent, when I spent a year in third form in an English
public school we were told to call the (female) teachers "sir,"
apparently to get us in the habit before we got to higher forms where
the teachers were men.
> We also don't have sports. I mean, we have two hours of enforced gym
> every week throughout the curricula until University, but the whole
> system of school teams is totally non-existent, and no status is
> attached to beeing good at sports - it's something you do out of school.
I don't think we had much more gym than that (U.S. private school). I'm
almost certain that there were school teams, although I don't remember
much attention being paid to them. But I gather that in many schools
they are important.
> Same goes for University. There is a University Sports Organization but
> it's not very important and has no impact on your academic status.
I think the only connection between sports and academic status in U.S.
colleges and universities is that players have to maintain some minimal
grade level, universities like having good athletes, so athletes who
have trouble getting adequate grades are likely to be steered into easy
courses. On the other hand, I gather that being a sports star, although
it doesn't affect your academic status, does affect your status among
fellow students.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> You use "professor" for secondary school teachers. Is it the same term
> used for teachers at the university? Does it reflect a comparable
> status? In the U.S. context I don't think I have ever heard a high
> school teacher called a professor. Although I expect there is an overlap
> in salary between well paid high school teachers and poorly paid
> professors, "professor" is generally seen as a higher status title.
High school and University professors are both called "professors", yes.
Being a University teacher is slightly higher in status, and a _lot_
better paid. I also think the _title_ professor can only be used as
title (on a calling card, for example) by a University professor. (But
then titles are all different in Italy. Every graduate can, for example,
sport the title "doctor", while engineering graduates can, but only
after passing the state exam, call themselves "engineers". Lawyers get
to call themselves "advocate". An engineering professor can call himself
dott.prof.ing., if he doesn't fear ridicule.)
But high school professors are actually very respected.
>
> > Same goes for University. There is a University Sports Organization but
> > it's not very important and has no impact on your academic status.
>
> I think the only connection between sports and academic status in U.S.
> colleges and universities is that players have to maintain some minimal
> grade level, universities like having good athletes, so athletes who
> have trouble getting adequate grades are likely to be steered into easy
> courses. On the other hand, I gather that being a sports star, although
> it doesn't affect your academic status, does affect your status among
> fellow students.
What I meant is that there are no athletes in the system. You can't go
to University because you're an athlete. Sports have absolutely nothing
to do with University. You don't have grades for them. Universities
don't have teams in any important sense. They don't gain any prestige
from having good atheltes - the matches and games are absolutely obscure
events anyway. You gain absolutely no benefit, neither academic nor
financial, by doing sports - on the contrary, you are likely to do
poorly because it's all time that's not spent studying. And of course,
you have to pay for your training, like I did when I took my judo class.
It's possible that they don't make you pay if you're a good athlete,
like my friend was with the sabre, but that's about it. Sports are not
subjects. They're something you do in your spare time for your
recreation.
And there are no "easy courses". There are tougher faculties, and some
Universities are notorious for having particularly tough faculties, for
example it's well-known that it takes on average two or three years
longer than the national average to graduate in Law from Padua, but once
you're in a faculty you have it as hard as everybody else. Humanities
give you more leeway, I could for example decide with which of several
professors to take my exams, and some professors are notoriously easy -
but some others are notoriously difficult and you have to pass with them
all the same.
David Friedman
ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> Sports are not
> subjects. They're something you do in your spare time for your
> recreation.
I think that's true in the U.S. as well. At many universities there is a
much bigger emphasis on sports than what you describe in Italy; athletes
are local celebrities, lots of people go to watch the games, and in
practice the university will accept someone who is a good athlete and
wouldn't otherwise be accepted. But I don't think sports were subjects,
at least as far as either my wife (who went to college in the seventies)
or I (sixties) can remember. I did Judo and archery, both of which were
made available by the school but neither of which had much in the way of
instruction--and I'm fairly sure there were no grades or credits.
Of course, I can't guarantee that applies to all schools, and it's
possible that there was some requirement of doing some sport, although I
don't think so. And gym was required, and I think graded, in high school.
> And there are no "easy courses". There are tougher faculties, and some
> Universities are notorious for having particularly tough faculties, for
> example it's well-known that it takes on average two or three years
> longer than the national average to graduate in Law from Padua, but once
> you're in a faculty you have it as hard as everybody else. Humanities
> give you more leeway, I could for example decide with which of several
> professors to take my exams, and some professors are notoriously easy -
> but some others are notoriously difficult and you have to pass with them
> all the same.
But if you can decide which professor you take your exams with, and some
are notoriously easy, doesn't that give you some leeway to choose an
easy professor rather than a hard one? That would be equivalent to the
student here who chooses an easy course--one where he can get a passing
grade without having to learn very much.
Brian M. Scott
<dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote:
>In article <1fu1swe.1msxadp1d4vtw7N%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
>> Sports are not
>> subjects. They're something you do in your spare time for your
>> recreation.
>I think that's true in the U.S. as well. At many universities there is a
>much bigger emphasis on sports than what you describe in Italy; athletes
>are local celebrities, lots of people go to watch the games, and in
>practice the university will accept someone who is a good athlete and
>wouldn't otherwise be accepted. But I don't think sports were subjects,
>at least as far as either my wife (who went to college in the seventies)
>or I (sixties) can remember. I did Judo and archery, both of which were
>made available by the school but neither of which had much in the way of
>instruction--and I'm fairly sure there were no grades or credits.
At Pomona there was a phys. ed. requirement, and it was graded,
though only Pass/Fail, if I remember correctly. It was cut in
half (but not eliminated) while I was there (1965-69). I haven't
had occasion to look recently, but I believe that Cleveland State
still requires a freshman phys. ed. course with some classroom
work and a couple of further phys. ed. activities.
>Of course, I can't guarantee that applies to all schools, and it's
>possible that there was some requirement of doing some sport, although I
>don't think so. And gym was required, and I think graded, in high school.
It was required in my junior high (1960-62, Indiana) and high
school (1962-65, Wisconsin); the former figured the grade into
one's GPA, the latter did not.
[...]
Brian
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> In article <1fu1swe.1msxadp1d4vtw7N%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
>
> > Sports are not
> > subjects. They're something you do in your spare time for your
> > recreation.
>
> I think that's true in the U.S. as well. At many universities there is a
> much bigger emphasis on sports than what you describe in Italy; athletes
> are local celebrities, lots of people go to watch the games, and in
> practice the university will accept someone who is a good athlete and
> wouldn't otherwise be accepted.
Yes, but you see, that's my point. They don't here. Athletes are
nobodies, nobody really watches the games (most sports sponsored by the
ESU are not team sports anyway), and you don't get into University
because you're a good athlete, because you don't have to get into
University unless you want to get into Medicine, where they have limited
access; and there you have an exam. People would bring out knives if
somebody was given a slot on anything else than by doing very well at
the entrance exam. All the other faculties, you just walk into the
office and enrol, and that's it.
> > And there are no "easy courses". There are tougher faculties, and some
> > Universities are notorious for having particularly tough faculties, for
> > example it's well-known that it takes on average two or three years
> > longer than the national average to graduate in Law from Padua, but once
> > you're in a faculty you have it as hard as everybody else. Humanities
> > give you more leeway, I could for example decide with which of several
> > professors to take my exams, and some professors are notoriously easy -
> > but some others are notoriously difficult and you have to pass with them
> > all the same.
>
> But if you can decide which professor you take your exams with, and some
> are notoriously easy, doesn't that give you some leeway to choose an
> easy professor rather than a hard one? That would be equivalent to the
> student here who chooses an easy course--one where he can get a passing
> grade without having to learn very much.
Not really. First of all, it's a very limited choice. I could choose to
take the annual part of History of Philosophy with one guy instead of
another, but this would mean that I got to study fun books on Zen and
Taoism instead of Aristotle: it hardly means that I'd get a pass if I
showed up and didn't say a word. Lots of people flunk that professor,
too. And I'd still have to pass the general part of the exam, a
gruelling experience. Then, I can choose some subjects instead of
others, but I suspect my finding them easy or difficult has much more
to do with my interest for them than with the required work. If I had to
brave Hegel to pass an exam I'd sweat blood, but there are probably
people who could not make sense of Wittgenstein no matter how hard they
tried.
And there are the bottlenecks: subjects you have to pass, and in your
course (you're assigned to one course depending on the first letter of
your surname or wether your matriculation number is even or odd, for
example) that subject is thaught by that professor, so that you have to
pass with them. There are people who drop out or change towns because
they become stuck with one professor. (There was that guy in the Law
School in Padua who asked, of one of my friends, whether she knew how to
prepare a perfect omlette, who had died in her home village, and the
names of the freakin' _Seven Dwarves_ - and he flunked her three times
without actually asking her any questions on his subject, Latin Right
Institutions IIRC. She ended up dropping out.)
Even the "easiest" of the University faculties, as it is commonly
considered, the Foreign Language one, expects you to learn a foreign
language and culture well enough to compose a dissertation about it in
that language. And you're expected to do it in four years. (And more or
less alone, because I've been to a language lesson and however good a
professor is, they can't teach a class of two hundred people
efficiently.) A friend of mine, who considered Engineering too
difficult, transferred to Mathematics because, since it required "only"
ninteen exams, instead of about thirty, it seemed easier to him. Ah. He
never graduated either. Two of my friends trasferred out of Physics and
Mathematics to History, and you can say, I guess, than in some sense
History is "easier" than a pure science faculty - but only in some
sense. I certainly found Philosophy easier than Medicine, Medicine
demands precision and retaining a lot of facts, quite easy in themselves
but lots and lots of them and to be retained in an orderly fashion,
without mixing them up, while Philosophy only demanded that you followed
complex arguments.
But once you have chosen a faculty, there are no shortcuts. There is
only a _very_ limited number of corners you can cut.
Italian University is hard. It's hard because nobody actually gives you
much help at any point in the process, but it's also hard because it
sets high standards. Only three people out of any ten that enrol manage
to graduate, after all. And those who do tend to be good at what they
do. The tragedy is, after investing a whole lot of money in training
people at such a high level, the system doesn's seem interested in doing
much with them, so that lots of them end up working abroad (and
benefiting other countries).
Nicola Browne
news:3eaa95c2....@enews.newsguy.com
> On 26 Apr 2003 05:40:47 GMT, Neil Barnes
> <nailed_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The U.S. master's degree is a lot more complicated than that. As
> a minor point, it's very likely to be two years, not one. More
> important, there's a huge difference from one subject to another.
> In some fields the master's degree is the normal professional
> qualification, so it's a terminal degree. Some people will go
> into a master's program directly after getting a bachelor's
> degree; others will acquire the master's later as an extra
> qualification, often very specifically in order to qualify for a
> higher salary or a more senior position. In other fields it's
> just a step on the way to a PhD, and perhaps a consolation prize
> for those who don't make it all the way.
>
Ah, well I bought my MA due to anomaly in the system now fixed.
You used to be able to pay a fiver to convert an Oxford BA to an MA
a certain number of years after matriculation.
So an MA Oxon means precisely the same as a BA Oxon - or did.
Everywhere else I think there is a two year course.
I don't know if you can now earn an MA at Oxford I've lost track.
Margaret Young
<dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote:
>In article <1fu1swe.1msxadp1d4vtw7N%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
>
>> Sports are not
>> subjects. They're something you do in your spare time for your
>> recreation.
>
>I think that's true in the U.S. as well. At many universities there is a
>much bigger emphasis on sports than what you describe in Italy; athletes
>are local celebrities, lots of people go to watch the games, and in
>practice the university will accept someone who is a good athlete and
>wouldn't otherwise be accepted. But I don't think sports were subjects,
>at least as far as either my wife (who went to college in the seventies)
>or I (sixties) can remember. I did Judo and archery, both of which were
>made available by the school but neither of which had much in the way of
>instruction--and I'm fairly sure there were no grades or credits.
>
At the college where I current teach you can take sports for credit
(usually 1/4 credit, and you can take up to four). I disapprove but that
doesn't change things at all.
>Of course, I can't guarantee that applies to all schools, and it's
>possible that there was some requirement of doing some sport, although I
>don't think so. And gym was required, and I think graded, in high school.
>
>> And there are no "easy courses". There are tougher faculties, and some
>> Universities are notorious for having particularly tough faculties, for
>> example it's well-known that it takes on average two or three years
>> longer than the national average to graduate in Law from Padua, but once
>> you're in a faculty you have it as hard as everybody else. Humanities
>> give you more leeway, I could for example decide with which of several
>> professors to take my exams, and some professors are notoriously easy -
>> but some others are notoriously difficult and you have to pass with them
>> all the same.
>
>But if you can decide which professor you take your exams with, and some
>are notoriously easy, doesn't that give you some leeway to choose an
>easy professor rather than a hard one? That would be equivalent to the
>student here who chooses an easy course--one where he can get a passing
>grade without having to learn very much.
When more than one professor is teaching a section of the same subject
students will frantically run around trying to figure out which one is
"easier". It is a known problem.
--
Margaret Young
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come the apocalypse there will be cockroaches, Keith Richards and the
faint smell of cat pee.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Poso
"Jaana Heino" <ja...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:slrnbaj9c3...@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI...
> Little kids:
> 0-6 Lastentarha / päiväkoti (kindergarten?)
> 6 Esikoulu (pre-school)
Preschool has become universally available quite recently, so
that even 3-4 years ago most children only went to
daycare/kindergarten
(is there a difference, other than that of UK/US terminology?) until
age 6.
> Secondary education:
> 16-18 Lukio (high school?)
> 16-18 Ammattikoulu (vocational school?)
These can be combined now, so that kids can acquire both a vocational
degree *and* a matriculation, um, diploma (?) during this period.
.apo
Michael R N Dolbear
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> wrote
[...]
> We don't have that at all in Italy, and the American system of
> do-it-yourself curricula sounds very weird to us. We don't get to
choose
> our subjects. Once you choose a secondary school, you follow their
> curriculum. The class is also fixed, and it stays in the same
classroom
> for the whole year, with the professors visiting the classroom they
> teach for that hour and moving around.
> We also don't have sports. I mean, we have two hours of enforced gym
What about practical / laboratory work for science, art, music maybe
languages. Surely they can't be "same classroom" ?
--
Mike D
David Friedman
> Only three people out of any ten that enrol manage
> to graduate, after all.
That sounds like one big difference. In the U.S., the elite universities
filter at the acceptance point; although some people choose to drop out
very few flunk out. In practice, I think almost anyone can get into
higher education of some sort, but for the people who did badly in high
school that may mean a local city college, with the possibility, if they
do well, of transferring to a better and more presigious state
university.
Harvard Law School used to have a tradition of graduating only about two
thirds of the entering class, but I think that vanished quite a long
time ago.
Do you know what fraction of the population ends up graduating from a
college or university or equivalent--say four years of schooling after
leaving the equivalent of high school?
> (And more or
> less alone, because I've been to a language lesson and however good a
> professor is, they can't teach a class of two hundred people
> efficiently.)
It sounds, from this and other things you say, as though the model is
one where the student mostly educates himself, with a little help from
lectures, and the university then tests him. Is that accurate? U.S.
college education has an element of that, but there is also quite a lot
of classroom instruction. You get big lectures for required general
education courses that lots of people have to take in the first year or
two, but, at least in my experience, they were usually combined with
much smaller discussion sections, typically run by a graduate student.
For later years classes seem to run twenty to eighty, not several
hundred.
But that's from a very limited experience of a fairly diverse system.
I'm teaching in a pretty good private university at the moment, have
taught in good private and state universities, went to a good private
university in the sixties. So things may be different elsewhere/when in
the system.
One question at a slight tangent--do you know how the hiring process
works for professors? I remember a long time ago hearing a talk about
the Spanish university system. As the speaker described it, when a
position was to be filled at university A, the committee that decided
who got it was made up of professors mostly from other universities. One
consequence was that they didn't have to worry about the effect of their
choice on their own academic environment--whether the job went to
someone they would be happy to have as a colleague and whose work would
raise the reputation of their university. So you got a lot of "if you
will vote to give a job to my protege I will vote to give a job to
yours" sorts of patronage and politics, with unfortunate consequences.
I don't, of course, know how accurate the description was, or if it is
still true for Spain, but I wondered whether or not either the
appointment process or the consequences applied to Italy.
Tim S
<Big snip>
>
> One question at a slight tangent--do you know how the hiring process
> works for professors? I remember a long time ago hearing a talk about
> the Spanish university system. As the speaker described it, when a
> position was to be filled at university A, the committee that decided
> who got it was made up of professors mostly from other universities. One
> consequence was that they didn't have to worry about the effect of their
> choice on their own academic environment--whether the job went to
> someone they would be happy to have as a colleague and whose work would
> raise the reputation of their university. So you got a lot of "if you
> will vote to give a job to my protege I will vote to give a job to
> yours" sorts of patronage and politics, with unfortunate consequences.
>
> I don't, of course, know how accurate the description was, or if it is
> still true for Spain, but I wondered whether or not either the
> appointment process or the consequences applied to Italy.
There was a lengthy correspondence in _Nature_ not very long ago about the
'nepotism' and patronage in the Spanish university system. Among other
unfortunate consequences, IIRC, people tend to be hired by the same
university they studied at, and then to stay there, stifling the flow of
ideas and expertise between universities.
It sounds as though this is still a live problem and a big concern for
Spanish academics (or scientists anyway -- they were the ones writing to
_Nature_).
Tim
Irina Rempt
> daycare/kindergarten
> (is there a difference, other than that of UK/US terminology?)
I think (but I'm neither in the US or the UK) that "daycare" is a place
for kids to be while the parents work, and "kindergarten" is a kind of
preschool. It's the same in the Netherlands, the difference between
"creche" (daycare) and "peuterspeelzaal" (preschool).
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
They can. There should be labs in our schools but they're often
underequipped, and thought of as a sort of fun activity that you do if
you're ahead of schedule. I think now with computers some things have
changed: in my time language lab consisted in hearing the same tape in a
headcuff instead as from the tape recorder. Hardly vital.
Of course, my superior school was a bit starved of space because it
rented some rooms grudgingly let by the local seminar, built to
accomodate luxuriously 600 aspiring priests and then only catering to
six pupils. They still had half the building to them, while we (all 600
of us) crowded in the other half. They kept the gymn for themselves.
We were supposed to have a library too, but it was a bit bare.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> (Anna provides lot of interesting information about Italian universities)
>
> > Only three people out of any ten that enrol manage
> > to graduate, after all.
>
> That sounds like one big difference. In the U.S., the elite universities
> filter at the acceptance point; although some people choose to drop out
> very few flunk out.
What happened was that once, Italian university was an elite thing. In
the sixties, it was opened up to the masses, but without giving to it
the money and support needed to cater to all students. The result is
this sink-or-swim situation. It's very bad on several levels, and most
of the costs are hidden but still there: if you live in a town were
there is no University and you're poor, tough. You still get no board
(there are subsidized dorm-like houses, but beds are really few). But I
have to admit that if you're good and work hard, you can graduate
virtually for free, and you have access to higher education even if
you're dirt-poor. If you don't fall behind and are below a certain
income you don't pay the taxes, and you have access to grants, very
reduced far in the University canteen, and possibly a cheap bed.
>In practice, I think almost anyone can get into
> higher education of some sort, but for the people who did badly in high
> school that may mean a local city college, with the possibility, if they
> do well, of transferring to a better and more presigious state
> university.
We are now having a slight differentiation between Universities, but
usually, there is little difference between them. Standards are pretty
universal.
The only two "famous" universities are the private Economics school in
Milan, Bocconi, and the public "Normal" School in Pisa. The Normal isn't
really a University, it's an institution attached to the University of
Pisa that gathers praticularly brilliant students in hard sciences and
follows them much more closely to see that they do their best. Some burn
out, but lots of bright minds have come out of it.
>
> Harvard Law School used to have a tradition of graduating only about two
> thirds of the entering class, but I think that vanished quite a long
> time ago.
>
> Do you know what fraction of the population ends up graduating from a
> college or university or equivalent--say four years of schooling after
> leaving the equivalent of high school?
University. We only have one kind of degrees - they introduced "short
degrees" but they are not terribly popular.
I don't know, but opinions here are between 5 and 8 %. Not very much.
There is probably a definite number somewhere on line but I can't find
it.
> > (And more or
> > less alone, because I've been to a language lesson and however good a
> > professor is, they can't teach a class of two hundred people
> > efficiently.)
>
> It sounds, from this and other things you say, as though the model is
> one where the student mostly educates himself, with a little help from
> lectures, and the university then tests him. Is that accurate?
Yes. I guess part of the reason it tends to produce good scientists is
that people who graduate from it have learned how to perform on their
own. Few of them, though. (And then ships them abroad, of course.)
U.S.
> college education has an element of that, but there is also quite a lot
> of classroom instruction. You get big lectures for required general
> education courses that lots of people have to take in the first year or
> two, but, at least in my experience, they were usually combined with
> much smaller discussion sections, typically run by a graduate student.
> For later years classes seem to run twenty to eighty, not several
> hundred.
That's a much better model but, of course, expensive. (My typical class
in Philosophy was around 30, actually. I was in the terribly bloated
Medical School before they introduced limitations to admission, I don't
know how many people there are now.)
> But that's from a very limited experience of a fairly diverse system.
> I'm teaching in a pretty good private university at the moment, have
> taught in good private and state universities, went to a good private
> university in the sixties. So things may be different elsewhere/when in
> the system.
>
> One question at a slight tangent--do you know how the hiring process
> works for professors?
No. I know publications and results of tests are involved, but IIRC, the
University can't hire who they want, they have to hire the ones that
have better titles. And it's awfully hard to get rid of somebody once
you hire them. I gather University staffs aren't happy with the system
at all.
silvasurfa
"AKNicolle" <akni...@aol.comhey.com> wrote in message
news:20030425103134...@mb-m05.aol.com...
>
> >As I asked in another thread, could people post the school year naming
> >system of their country (or region, if it breaks down like that)?
> >
Current South Australian school year system...
Preschool Education
Early Childhood Education. Most formal childcare centres have some qualified
staff who attempt to schedule activities that are somewhat educational.
Kindergarten... several voluntary half day heavily subsidised session per
week, from the date of a childs 4th birthday until school is commenced.
There is a several months long period called "transition" when the child
makes visits to their primary school.
Primary School Education
Preparatory or "Prep"... a sort of light version of primary school. A child
may start the semester after they turn 5. A child is required by law to
start before they turn 6. The number of semester spend in "prep" varies,
depending on the age of the child and the school's assessment of progress.
Primary school. Years 1 to 7 (or Grades 1 to 7, depending on what
terminology the Education Department is choosing to favour that year) with
most kids turning 12 or 13 in Year 7.
High School Education
High School. Years 8 to 12 and/or 13. Our final 1 or 2 years of highschool
are called Matric, short for Matriculation. You can do Matric over 1 year,
or 2, or try to do it over 1 year then "top up" your results by doing a
second year. Year 12 and 13 have PES subjects and SAS subjects (PES =
publicly examined, SAS = school assessed, the publicly examined subjects are
usually the more academic ones) and some tertiary courses require a certain
number of PES subjects.
Some Highschools are divided into upper and lower schools, some combined
Primary and High schools divide up into upper, middle and lower schools, but
this is rare.
Assessment for Tertiary Study
Most (not all) tertiary courses require that you apply through SATAC (South
Australian Tertiary Admissions Centre). Offers of places based upon tertiary
entrance rankiing are made in several "rounds"... published in the
newspapers, and you have to contact to confirm you are taking up the offer,
or if you wish to defer it for a year. The tertiary ranking is based upon
your Matric score after it is sent through a statistical process called "The
Moderator" which essentially compares the school assessed part of the mark
with the exam assessed part, and compensates for the fact that some schools
mark harder than others.
Adult Entry Exam
If you are over 21, you can do a series of exams and be assigned a tertiary
entrance rank.
Tertiary Study
University
Academia. Degree courses. Postgraduate. Some Diplomas and Certificates
TAFE (Techinical and Further Education)
Focused on vocational learning.
Mostly Diplomas and Certificates. The awards are usually sort of modular...
if you get certificate x, y and z then it adds up to a particular Diploma.
Some of the Diplomas are regarded as equivalent in status to a University
Diploma. Some of the Diplomas give you entry to particular University
degrees.
Hope that's enough local jargon and administrivia for you!
David Friedman
ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> > college education has an element of that, but there is also quite a lot
> > of classroom instruction. You get big lectures for required general
> > education courses that lots of people have to take in the first year or
> > two, but, at least in my experience, they were usually combined with
> > much smaller discussion sections, typically run by a graduate student.
> > For later years classes seem to run twenty to eighty, not several
> > hundred.
>
> That's a much better model but, of course, expensive. (My typical class
> in Philosophy was around 30, actually. I was in the terribly bloated
> Medical School before they introduced limitations to admission, I don't
> know how many people there are now.)
The "big lecture + discussion section led by a graduate student" isn't
expensive, since graduate students cost a lot less than professor. The
smaller classes in later years are.
I can see some real advantages to what I gather was the traditional
English system, where most of the education is done by the student on
his own, with a faculty member to provide some guidance and exams at the
end. People vary a lot, but in my experience sitting in a classroom
listening to a professor, or even a professor interacting with a class
of thirty or so, is boring a lot of the time.
Catja Pafort
> I can see some real advantages to what I gather was the traditional
> English system, where most of the education is done by the student on
> his own, with a faculty member to provide some guidance and exams at the
> end. People vary a lot, but in my experience sitting in a classroom
> listening to a professor, or even a professor interacting with a class
> of thirty or so, is boring a lot of the time.
Maybe you've been to the wrong universities, or studied the wrong
subject.
I've been to boring lectures, but that's usually because they were done
by boring people. Who didn't improve at a 1:10 ratio, either.
But I've had a lot of fun, and many *fascinating* lectures and courses.
In the German system, the student remains responsible for learning; they
get plenty of opportunities to do presentations and papers, but there
are hardly any tests. And speaking as someone who sucks at tests, that
is a Good Thing.
Catja
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> > That's a much better model but, of course, expensive. (My typical class
> > in Philosophy was around 30, actually. I was in the terribly bloated
> > Medical School before they introduced limitations to admission, I don't
> > know how many people there are now.)
>
> The "big lecture + discussion section led by a graduate student" isn't
> expensive, since graduate students cost a lot less than professor. The
> smaller classes in later years are.
Well, they cost less, but they still cost. And so do rooms to hold the
discussion in, and people to keep it clean, and electricity to light it,
and fuel to heat it, and the administrative work to divide the class
into smaller groups, and so on, and so forth...
As a matter of fact, in Philosophy we did have seminars, which were held
in the afternoons typically once a week. They were held by professors,
or assitant professors, or researchers (which I guess are the equivalent
of graduate students). In Medical School we had labs: fifteen or so of
us, in turns. The seminars weren't compulsory, the labs, of course,
were.
> I can see some real advantages to what I gather was the traditional
> English system, where most of the education is done by the student on
> his own, with a faculty member to provide some guidance and exams at the
> end. People vary a lot, but in my experience sitting in a classroom
> listening to a professor, or even a professor interacting with a class
> of thirty or so, is boring a lot of the time.
Well, I have had an Anatomy professor who could make _anatomy_
interesting, and a moral philosophy one that could make ethics boring.
It doesn't matter. It's not supposed to be entertainment. Especially at
Medical School, you're supposed to be there to _learn_, not to have fun.
Some people have fun anyway (I did, mostly), some endure it because a
degree means a better job and more money, and some drop out. And some
spend ten years technically at university, frolicking happily in town
and not getting much done.
David Friedman
green...@cix.co.uk (Catja Pafort) wrote:
> Maybe you've been to the wrong universities, or studied the wrong
> subject.
All possible, but I don't think terribly likely. More likely is a
difference in how different people learn.
> I've been to boring lectures, but that's usually because they were done
> by boring people. Who didn't improve at a 1:10 ratio, either.
> But I've had a lot of fun, and many *fascinating* lectures and courses.
I have long been puzzled by the fact that the mass lecture wasn't
replaced by the book once printing was a well established technology. On
the face of it, the book has enormous advantages.
1. You can learn the subject from the best writer on that subject in the
history of the world, alive or dead. Your lecture, if you are lucky, is
given by the best lecturer in the subject at your university.
2. You can go at your own pace, reread difficult parts, go back to
things you realize you didn't understand.
3. You can read the book at whatever time you prefer--some people learn
best at 1 A.M.
4. The author of the book can do a much better job of figuring out
exactly how to put things than the same person could giving a lecture,
since a book can be revised over and over again, while a lecture is
given in real time.
The only advantage I can see to the large lecture over the book is that
spoken English is a somewhat richer language than written English (and I
assume similarly for other languages).
Mary Messall
> The "big lecture + discussion section led by a graduate student" isn't
> expensive, since graduate students cost a lot less than professor. The
> smaller classes in later years are.
> I can see some real advantages to what I gather was the traditional
> English system, where most of the education is done by the student on
> his own, with a faculty member to provide some guidance and exams at the
> end. People vary a lot, but in my experience sitting in a classroom
> listening to a professor, or even a professor interacting with a class
> of thirty or so, is boring a lot of the time.
I spent a year in the English system, at the University of Durham, and
three years at a small liberal arts college in the US (which *is*
expensive, but offers scholarships, so that in the end it was reduced
to about the price of Kansas State, which is where I would otherwise
have gone.)
I'm a physics major, but I took almost enough classics classes,
including a year of Latin, to qualify for a minor in the subject while
I was here (I did get a math minor, but that is almost automatic for
physics majors). I got to study philosophy and Chinese religions and
all sorts of things. None of these classes had more than twenty-some
people in them, and all were taught by professors. I've eaten dinner at
my professors' homes and I'm going sailing with one this afternoon.
OTOH, I don't think there was much real research going on, compared to
a big university. The professors didn't have the time.
In my year at Durham, OTOH, I did nothing but physics. Lectures with
150 other students and lecturers who seemed to have no time for
students, instead. I did all right on the exams, but the fact that
there was very little work of any kind due along the way did make me
feel that no one really cared whether I was learning or not. It was
somewhat frustrating, because I often wasn't sure whether I understood.
And if I didn't, it was not easy to ask questions, at least not any
that took longer than a minute or two to answer. OTOH, it was
stimulating, to basically have new information poured over me
constantly without regard for whether I was absorbing it all or not...
And on the exams, 70% was a first, 50% was not a disgrace.
Then I came back here, and took an art history class, and couldn't
believe how slowly it moved and how superficially it treated things and
how much of the homework was just busywork...
And I think I concluded that the American system, or at least my
university's system, really was better for the sciences. It leads to a
higher comfort level with the methods and a more integrated
understanding, or did for me. But that the British system ("Here's a
stack of books, come back when you've read them") really was the right
way to teach the humanities. That said...
In spite of myself, and contrary to my expectations, I'm glad I chose
to get my degree here. (I had considered going over the the UK for the
whole thing, you see. International student fees are not much more than
out of state tuition, and it would have been only three years.) Because
I don't think it's necessary to speciallize so much. I like being a
physics major who knows a bit of Latin. And because the competive,
sink-or-swim aspect of the British system led to some bright people I
knew there dropping out or barely scraping through with thirds, and a
bitter feeling toward their whole discipline. A ruthless meritocracy
sounds good in theory, I guess, but these people would have done very
well under the system I'm used to, and would have enjoyed themselves a
lot more, I couldn't help feeling.
This is the first time I've tried to organize my thoughts on the
subject and draw real conclusions, so I hope you'll forgive a little
incoherence, and the fact that it's only of tangential relevance...
It's taken me a year to sort out all my mixed feelings. I guess I
haven't quite managed it, because although I say I'm glad I didn't do
my degree there, I'm also very glad I did one year of it. Actually I
may have got (or gotten? <g>) the best of all words.
-Mary
Charlton Wilbur
> I've been to boring lectures, but that's usually because they were done
> by boring people. Who didn't improve at a 1:10 ratio, either.
>
> But I've had a lot of fun, and many *fascinating* lectures and courses.
The real advantage of small groups is adaptability. A good lecturer
will be good regardless; but if some of the students understand the
material faster than others, they're pretty much out of luck. Whereas
the professor in a small group can adapt the material to the students
-- they get that concept easily, so it doesn't need in-depth work, but
that other concept is more difficult. This is a different sort of
work for the teacher, and
> In the German system, the student remains responsible for learning; they
> get plenty of opportunities to do presentations and papers, but there
> are hardly any tests. And speaking as someone who sucks at tests, that
> is a Good Thing.
I think it's an ambivalent thing. I think better-quality learning
takes place when there isn't a perpetual focus on Will This Be On The
Test, but at the same time it's good to have some idea of what you've
mastered. Perhaps the appropriate approach would be advisory tests -
nothing that counts for a grade, but which has sufficient testing
power to inform the student whether or not he or she is mastering the
necessary skills and learning the right things.
And students can be distinctly odd about this. One semester, when I
was teaching music theory, I thought I had made my standards clear. I
was using a portfolio approach to grading: for each type of
problem/exercise we had studied, the students were expected to submit
a portfolio of five perfectly-worked ones. This was something like
40% of the grade, but they could give me examples for review and I
would give feedback on them. I gave ample feedback, and I was careful
to be precise and as objective as possible in the feedback: things
that were 'wrong' in terms of the style, things that were 'weak' in
terms of the style, and things that were good in terms of the style.
(This was first-semester music theory, species counterpoint exercises;
the idea was *not* creative composition, but more like grammar
exercises -- a parallel might be, in a formal study of grammar, "write
five compound-complex sentences demonstrating adverbial prepositional
phrases." Though it's rather more complex and involved than that.)
Then, I graded the portfolios, according to the standards I had
established: Four points for each exercise; each thing that was wrong
in terms of the style cost a point, and more than three things that
were weak cost a point as well. This caused a furor; apparently the
students had not actually *read* the feedback, and did not realize how
harshly I would be grading. The way I saw it, they had been warned,
and they had had two months in which to submit examples for my review.
"You gave them *feedback*," my supervising professor told me, "when
what they really wanted were *grades*."
Charlton
Charlton Wilbur
> I spent a year in the English system, at the University of Durham, and
> three years at a small liberal arts college in the US (which *is*
> expensive, but offers scholarships, so that in the end it was reduced
> to about the price of Kansas State, which is where I would otherwise
> have gone.)
Which liberal arts college? I went to Bowdoin, because with financial
aid it was about the same price as in-state state university tuition
-- same experience as you.
> Then I came back here, and took an art history class, and couldn't
> believe how slowly it moved and how superficially it treated things
> and how much of the homework was just busywork...
At Bowdoin, I was a music & computer science double major. Both
departments were sort of like drinking from firehoses. The attitude
of the music department was that there was no way you could learn
everything you needed to know about music in four years, and so they
were going to present as much as humanly possible and you were
expected to remember what you could. The attitude of the computer
science department was that with a sufficiently rigorous introduction
to the fundamental principles (especially various types of formal
systems) and a few concrete examples you could be expected to pick up
things like C++ as necessary.
At the same time, I took a psychology course and a sociology course,
and they were both rather vacuous; the principal benefit to me from
the sociology course was in the books I had to purchase and read, and
the principal benefit to me from the psychology course was the
checkmark I got next to 'graduation requirements.' My suspicion is
that this is because they were both low-level courses for non-majors.
Finally, I think the real benefit of my undergraduate education is not
in what I learned about the subjects -- I don't use anything I
officially learned after the first year of my computer science major
in my job -- but the skill in drinking from a firehose. At one point,
at a part-time job while I was in graduate school, I was asked to
write a little Java program. One of my coworkers was an undergraduate
in computer science at the same school (which taught the introductory
courses in Java); he insisted that it would take me *at least* six
months to learn enough Java. I sat down with a couple of O'Reilly
books, and within about a week I had a program written to spec -- and
I was giving lessons in doing it to the undergraduate. That's what I
learned from my college education.
Charlton
Joann Zimmerman
>
> Then I came back here, and took an art history class, and couldn't
> believe how slowly it moved and how superficially it treated things and
> how much of the homework was just busywork...
The way it should work in art history: it will seem slow because the main
things we try to get across in the intro course are a new way of using
your eyes, and setting the ground rules for how to talk about art. You
can read all you want to, but withot some discussion and guided
questions, it's all a muddle in the beginning. (Trust me on this; I took
a number of art history courses without taking the intro--in fact the
first time I encounted an intro art history course, I was the TA. The
first semester I hadn't a clue, despite being well-read in architecture
and having a degree in history.)
The homework I assigned fell into two categories: read the textbook (and
not all of that), and go off and look at one or more objects in detail,
get used to comparing and contrasting (art history's meat and drink) and
write about something in depth. Making friends with an object is most
certainly not busywork.
--
"I never understood people that don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton
Joann Zimmerman jz...@bellereti.com
Brian M. Scott
in news:ddfr-1FDCF9.0...@sea-read.news.verio.net in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> In article <1fu8nq4.b81kd21eqcoe8N%green...@cix.co.uk>,
> green...@cix.co.uk (Catja Pafort) wrote:
>> Maybe you've been to the wrong universities, or studied
>> the wrong subject.
> All possible, but I don't think terribly likely. More
> likely is a difference in how different people learn.
Almost certainly.
[...]
> I have long been puzzled by the fact that the mass lecture
> wasn't replaced by the book once printing was a well
> established technology. On the face of it, the book has
> enormous advantages.
> 1. You can learn the subject from the best writer on that
> subject in the history of the world, alive or dead. Your
> lecture, if you are lucky, is given by the best lecturer in
> the subject at your university.
This assumes that 'best writer on the subject' is actually
definable. In general I don't think that it is, as different
people will have different notions of what's best. And in
many fields you're better off reading several writers on the
subject, preferably with someone to tell you a bit about their
relative strengths and weaknesses. Eventually you'll know
enough to be your own guide, but at the undergraduate level
some such guidance really is helpful.
> 2. You can go at your own pace, reread difficult parts, go
> back to things you realize you didn't understand.
> 3. You can read the book at whatever time you prefer--some
> people learn best at 1 A.M.
> 4. The author of the book can do a much better job of
> figuring out exactly how to put things than the same person
> could giving a lecture, since a book can be revised over
> and over again, while a lecture is given in real time.
In my experience revisions of math books after the first are
generally *not* improvements; perhaps it's different in other
fields.
> The only advantage I can see to the large lecture over the
> book is that spoken English is a somewhat richer language
> than written English (and I assume similarly for other
> languages).
There is also the possibility of pointing at things and waving
one's arms about to illustrate points. And even in fairly
large sections there is some possibility of interacting
directly with the students and dealing on the spot with a
difficulty.
In any case we don't have to choose: we have both. (And being
a nightowl, I read *lots* of books at 1 a.m.!)
Brian
Mary Messall
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> writes:
> > I spent a year in the English system, at the University of Durham, and
> > three years at a small liberal arts college in the US (which *is*
> > expensive, but offers scholarships, so that in the end it was reduced
> > to about the price of Kansas State, which is where I would otherwise
> > have gone.)
> Which liberal arts college? I went to Bowdoin, because with financial
> aid it was about the same price as in-state state university tuition
> -- same experience as you.
The University of Puget Sound. (The UPS in my email address is not, in
fact, a shipping company.)
> At Bowdoin, I was a music & computer science double major. Both
> departments were sort of like drinking from firehoses. The attitude
> of the music department was that there was no way you could learn
> everything you needed to know about music in four years, and so they
> were going to present as much as humanly possible and you were
> expected to remember what you could. The attitude of the computer
> science department was that with a sufficiently rigorous introduction
> to the fundamental principles (especially various types of formal
> systems) and a few concrete examples you could be expected to pick up
> things like C++ as necessary.
Physics is definitely too big a subject to teach in four years. Maybe
all subjects are, in which case, you're right, a college degree will
teach you about drinking from the firehose no matter what field it's
in.
I like the distinction you make between the approaches. I'd say that
UPS took the computer science department's approach -- in fact it
*was* assumed that you would pick up some programming languages on your
own time. And that you'd learn enough statistics to be able to do
standard deviations and correlations and so on by the time you got to
quantum mechanics, in spite of the fact that there was no statistics
requirement for the major. Actually the list of requirements is pretty
short.
I think I covered as many separate subjects in the one year at Durham
as I did in the three years at UPS, if not more. *They* did require a
formal lecture course on programming (in Fortran. Such fun!) which was,
however, about five weeks long and covered as much material in that
time as the intro programming class which took all semester in high
school. So that's the music department approach. Lectures on vibrations
in solids, electrons in solids, X-ray and neutron scattering,
thermodynamics, polarization optics... Just every subdiscipline they
could think of, and no connective tissue between them at all.
So maybe I'm not really picking up on the difference between the US and
UK systems (except to the extent that specialization encourages the
latter approach rather than the former) so much as the difference
between techniques for drinking from the hose. I find the "pick it up
as you need it" approach a lot less stressful, and in some ways more
effective, than the alternative. The scatter-shot method probably
forces me to retain more information, but the "fundamentals first, and
the rest is your job" technique gives me a lot more confident grasp of
what to do with all of that information, what it means.
> At the same time, I took a psychology course and a sociology course,
> and they were both rather vacuous; the principal benefit to me from
> the sociology course was in the books I had to purchase and read, and
> the principal benefit to me from the psychology course was the
> checkmark I got next to 'graduation requirements.' My suspicion is
> that this is because they were both low-level courses for non-majors.
That's true. I've been judging humanities courses rather harshly,
lately, but no doubt that is in part an effect of having only taken
them at a lower levels. Still, I can't help feeling that those subjects
really can be learned much more easily than math and science can, from
books alone, without the formal structure.
> I sat down with a couple of O'Reilly
> books, and within about a week I had a program written to spec -- and
> I was giving lessons in doing it to the undergraduate. That's what I
> learned from my college education.
I've had this experience. I was working on the IT staff at KU for a
summer. "Do you know ASP?" <thinks: "That's just server-side scripts in
visual basic, right? Well, I used to know Qbasic..."> "Um, sure!" <g>
I still don't *really* know ASP, but I managed to do what they wanted
done anyway. I was unbelievably pleased with myself about it, too.
-Mary
Mary K. Kuhner
>> I can see some real advantages to what I gather was the traditional
>> English system, where most of the education is done by the student on
>> his own, with a faculty member to provide some guidance and exams at the
>> end. People vary a lot, but in my experience sitting in a classroom
>> listening to a professor, or even a professor interacting with a class
>> of thirty or so, is boring a lot of the time.
>Maybe you've been to the wrong universities, or studied the wrong
>subject.
Recent psych theory also suggests that some people learn readily from
lectures, and some don't.
I'm very happy with lectures, myself. I write stories during them if
the topic doesn't engage me adequately; I've gotten good at writing
with one ear and listening with the other. (Or something like that.
It really bugs my labmate to watch me do it.) But I have just been
reading Jackie Chan's autobiography, and the pain in his descriptions
of lectures--he could learn from demonstrations, he could learn by
being pushed through the motions, he could learn from beatings, but
not lectures!--is very clear and vivid.
I'm grappling with this in my own teaching. I tried having my
population genetics students count out real physical beans and
do some quick experiments, but the results were discouraging--
we kept coming out with impossible results like 2.5 offspring from
one mating.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
David Friedman
wrote:
> That's true. I've been judging humanities courses rather harshly,
> lately, but no doubt that is in part an effect of having only taken
> them at a lower levels. Still, I can't help feeling that those subjects
> really can be learned much more easily than math and science can, from
> books alone, without the formal structure.
I don't see why the formal structure can't be provided from a book.
The most advanced math courses I took consisted of my taking notes of
what the professor said but making very little effort to actually keep
up, then learning the whole course during the week before the final from
my notes. I don't see why I couldn't have done the same thing from a
book.
I don't know where in the science/humanities range you would put
economics, but I've written books that consisted of the content of a
course I taught. The only substantial disadvantage someone would have
reading the book instead of taking the course, so far as I can see, is
not being able to ask questions--but in a large lecture course that
usually isn't an option.
David Friedman
ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> > I can see some real advantages to what I gather was the traditional
> > English system, where most of the education is done by the student on
> > his own, with a faculty member to provide some guidance and exams at the
> > end. People vary a lot, but in my experience sitting in a classroom
> > listening to a professor, or even a professor interacting with a class
> > of thirty or so, is boring a lot of the time.
>
> Well, I have had an Anatomy professor who could make _anatomy_
> interesting, and a moral philosophy one that could make ethics boring.
> It doesn't matter. It's not supposed to be entertainment. Especially at
> Medical School, you're supposed to be there to _learn_, not to have fun.
> Some people have fun anyway (I did, mostly), some endure it because a
> degree means a better job and more money, and some drop out.
In my experience, I learn a lot less when I am bored than when I am
interested. The good books aren't the ones that you read, page by page,
because someone is making you read them.
Catja Pafort
> Catja Pafort <green...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >David wrote:
>
> >> I can see some real advantages to what I gather was the traditional
> >> English system, where most of the education is done by the student on
> >> his own, with a faculty member to provide some guidance and exams at the
> >> end. People vary a lot, but in my experience sitting in a classroom
> >> listening to a professor, or even a professor interacting with a class
> >> of thirty or so, is boring a lot of the time.
>
> >Maybe you've been to the wrong universities, or studied the wrong
> >subject.
>
> Recent psych theory also suggests that some people learn readily from
> lectures, and some don't.
While there is a correlation between liking a lecture and learning from
them, I don't think there is a total overlap. I've vastly enjoyed some
without taking too much from them, and have soaked up lots and lots of
facts (and done plenty of additional reading on top of it) despite
loathing the lecturer.
> I'm grappling with this in my own teaching. I tried having my
> population genetics students count out real physical beans and
> do some quick experiments, but the results were discouraging--
> we kept coming out with impossible results like 2.5 offspring from
> one mating.
At least in a German university, to some degree, that would not be
considered your fault. If *all* of your students walk off, that would be
a bad thing. But if you're doing your best, and your students keep going
down the pub, well, that's *their* problem. Not sure how that works out
in British universities, where the students pay, and universities have a
vested interest in them coming back the next year and paying more fees.
Catja
Blake A. Loyd
"Mary K. Kuhner" <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:b8pd84$1168$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu...
> I'm grappling with this in my own teaching. I tried having my
> population genetics students count out real physical beans and
> do some quick experiments, but the results were discouraging--
> we kept coming out with impossible results like 2.5 offspring from
> one mating.
>
offer my help.
Loyd
Marilee J. Layman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote:
>I have long been puzzled by the fact that the mass lecture wasn't
>replaced by the book once printing was a well established technology. On
>the face of it, the book has enormous advantages.
Some people have to listen to things to learn them.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Handmade Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Marilee J. Layman
K. Kuhner) wrote:
>In article <1fu8nq4.b81kd21eqcoe8N%green...@cix.co.uk>,
>Catja Pafort <green...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>David wrote:
>
>>> I can see some real advantages to what I gather was the traditional
>>> English system, where most of the education is done by the student on
>>> his own, with a faculty member to provide some guidance and exams at the
>>> end. People vary a lot, but in my experience sitting in a classroom
>>> listening to a professor, or even a professor interacting with a class
>>> of thirty or so, is boring a lot of the time.
>
>>Maybe you've been to the wrong universities, or studied the wrong
>>subject.
>
>Recent psych theory also suggests that some people learn readily from
>lectures, and some don't.
I need to read/see something to retain it. About 30 seconds into
audio stuff, I start daydreaming.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:02:00 GMT, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote:
>
> >I have long been puzzled by the fact that the mass lecture wasn't
> >replaced by the book once printing was a well established technology. On
> >the face of it, the book has enormous advantages.
>
> Some people have to listen to things to learn them.
Well, I had only one professor who confined himself to a) repeat
verbatim what was written on his textbook, and b) told tall stories of
his days of glory in research. Since people saw no sane reason to attend
his lectures, he took to threatening to flunk people whose face he
didn't recognize from lectures.
I read all of _There are Doors_ in his class.
For the rest, professors would either _explain_ what was in the book, or
conduct on-the-fly arguments starting from the material we were supposed
to study. One Philosophy professor would pronounce with great
concentration and deliberation perfectly formed sentences that you could
easily jot down in their entirety. They didn't, as far as I could see,
mean anything much, but once you read them through a couple of times you
learned to speak (and I suspect think) in those terms. This professor,
which at first I took for a complete dunce, would, at the exams, give
you a sentence from his books and ask you to comment it. He either
passed you with top grades (30), or with a _very_ good grade, 29, or
flunk you, in a very polite and gentle way. I took both iterations of
that subjects with him because, well, because I thought it was an easy
grade, but then I saw one girl fail, and I realized that he was _really_
teaching you something. I'm not sure what. The girl had thought she
could just learn his text by rote, and she floundered until she came up
short against the classical "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
question. She shut up then, looking lost and offended. I understood then
that if she had argued, _anything_, if she had found _any_ kind of
position and defended it, she would have passed. She just had to show
that she cared about the question, that she thought about it.
He remained a cypher for me. He had a devoted following of students who
kept going to his lessons long before they had completed the requisite
two exams, and drank in his every word, so I guess they had to mean
something for them. I was never able to decide if he was complete fluff
or very profound - or _both_. He died one spring day while he dozed on a
lounge chair on the beach, with a book on his lap, as he often did.
People grieved a lot. It seemed one hell of a nice way to go to me.
Charlton Wilbur
The unfortunate part is, though, is that "I can learn quickly" doesn't
seem to be a selling point for employers; it doesn't matter if you can
adapt quickly, it matters that you have the 5 years experience with
Windows 2000 that the human-resources types have on their checklist.
In that sense, my formal education suffers -- "Did you have a course
in C++ in college?" "We used Eiffel and Smalltalk extensively, and I
picked up enough C++ to write about 10,000 lines of Windows GUI code,
but no, no formal training in C++." "Okay, that's a 'no.' How about
Java?" Perhaps there are more sensible companies out there somewhere,
but I have yet to run into one.
Charlton
Charlton Wilbur
> I don't see why the formal structure can't be provided from a book.
Because learning styles differ.
For every person who learns adequately by reading a book, there are
probably two that learn best by doing things hands-on, and probably
five that learn best by interacting. This probably varies by subject;
the numbers I give are based on my experiences in teaching music. If
I want the students to grasp a theoretical concept, I present it to
them several different ways: explaining the concept (verbal), working
through an example with them (interactive), giving it to them as part
of homework (hands-on), making them sing through the example
(sensory). And *then* they get to ask questions. This varied
approach is impossible to accomplish with just a book.
And I don't think that this is true merely of music; one of the
fundamental things that you need to learn in any discipline is how to
learn from the books published in that discipline. Once you've
learned *that*, you're all set, but you still need to learn that
somehow. That's one of the principal goals of undergraduate education.
> The most advanced math courses I took consisted of my taking notes
> of what the professor said but making very little effort to actually
> keep up, then learning the whole course during the week before the
> final from my notes. I don't see why I couldn't have done the same
> thing from a book.
David, you would think that after some of the wrangles that you've
been through in this newsgroup you would realize that you are neither
representative nor average. You probably could have learned all that
from the book, probably because, due to your background, you had
already mastered all the necessary skills for learning things from the
book. This doesn't indicate that anyone could, and it certainly
doesn't indicate that doing so would be the *easiest* way to learn.
> I don't know where in the science/humanities range you would put
> economics, but I've written books that consisted of the content of a
> course I taught. The only substantial disadvantage someone would have
> reading the book instead of taking the course, so far as I can see, is
> not being able to ask questions--but in a large lecture course that
> usually isn't an option.
It is much easier to watch the *process* of a problem being worked out
when someone is doing it at a blackboard and explaining the steps than
when it is written down in a book.
It is much easier to learn things in small increments. (Exactly what
constitutes "small" varies by student.)
It is much easier to learn if you have periodic tests to measure what
you're learning and to make sure you're not misunderstanding.
It is much easier to learn if you have mastered the skills appropriate
to the method of teaching.
It is much easier to learn if you have two perspectives on or
approaches to the material -- generally, the book's and the teacher's.
Given the choice between a large lecture course and a book, I'd choose
the book; been there, done that, and the book was far more useful.
Given the choice between a small class of 10 or so and a book, I'd
choose the class, and buy the book for later or concurrent perusal --
not because I *can't* learn from a book, but because I find it more
enjoyable to learn in a small-class setting.
Charlton
Charlton Wilbur
> I'm grappling with this in my own teaching. I tried having my
> population genetics students count out real physical beans and do
> some quick experiments, but the results were discouraging-- we kept
> coming out with impossible results like 2.5 offspring from one
> mating.
If it's any consolation -- it seems that what matters is not that they
come out with the right answer, but that they come out with a sense of
the process, with a set of critical skills, and with a sufficient
understanding of the material to know when they've come out with the
wrong error -- to say, 'hm, 2.5 offspring isn't right. what is going
wrong here?'
When I was teaching counterpoint, I used to hand out a particular set
of counterpoint exercises for commentary. The students were used to
this; I'd hand out examples with errors in them, and we'd spend some
time looking for them, and it helped them find errors in their own
work. For this particular handout, we'd spend maybe 20 minutes
working with it, and then I'd hand out the source for the counterpoint
exercises: young Mozart's, with corrections marked by his teacher.
(The tongue-in-cheek point was intended to be, "if you learn to find
and correct your mistakes, you can be as great as Mozart; after all,
he made the same sort of mistakes that you do!" One student
remarked, though, "hey, this means that if you make counterpoint
errors, you'll grow up to be a great composer and your teacher will be
forgotten!")
Charlton
Heather Jones
>
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> writes:
>
> > I don't see why the formal structure can't be provided from a book.
>
> Because learning styles differ.
>
> For every person who learns adequately by reading a book, there are
> probably two that learn best by doing things hands-on, and probably
> five that learn best by interacting. This probably varies by subject;
> the numbers I give are based on my experiences in teaching music. If
> I want the students to grasp a theoretical concept, I present it to
> them several different ways: explaining the concept (verbal), working
> through an example with them (interactive), giving it to them as part
> of homework (hands-on), making them sing through the example
> (sensory). And *then* they get to ask questions. This varied
> approach is impossible to accomplish with just a book.
My experience has been that it isn't simply that different people
learn better by different intake methods but that, to some
degree, _everybody_ learns better when more than one type of
intake is involved. (As well as more than one type of
manipulation of the material in using it.)
Moreover, in my field (linguistics), for pretty much everything
except the basic-level classes, the "textbook" is an ad-hoc
reader composed of an assortment of classic and cutting-edge
publications on the topic, and the lectures (in theory) provide
the overall structure in which to fit these individual
"snapshots". The same is true in a lot of disciplines these days.
Heather
--
*****
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*****
Alma Hromic Deckert
Dal Dan) wrote:
> I saw one girl fail, and I realized that he was _really_
>teaching you something. I'm not sure what. The girl had thought she
>could just learn his text by rote, and she floundered until she came up
>short against the classical "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
>question. She shut up then, looking lost and offended. I understood then
>that if she had argued, _anything_, if she had found _any_ kind of
>position and defended it, she would have passed. She just had to show
>that she cared about the question, that she thought about it.
>
>He remained a cypher for me. He had a devoted following of students who
>kept going to his lessons long before they had completed the requisite
>two exams, and drank in his every word, so I guess they had to mean
>something for them. I was never able to decide if he was complete fluff
>or very profound - or _both_. He died one spring day while he dozed on a
>lounge chair on the beach, with a book on his lap, as he often did.
>People grieved a lot. It seemed one hell of a nice way to go to me.
this is a book. this is a wonderful character. you should write a
novel on it, anna
i suspect you'd get top passing grades. <G>
A.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> this is a book. this is a wonderful character. you should write a
> novel on it, anna
>
> i suspect you'd get top passing grades. <G>
eh. Right now, I am busy incorporating Emiliano, his family, Mary you
should buy this book and Italian SF conventions*, as well as Falcone's
funerals, in a first contact story set in Palermo. I invented this
fictional "Liceo Scientifico Statale Guglielmo Marconi", but Emiliano
informed me that one of Palermo's Scientific Liceum _is_ actually called
"Guglielmo Marconi". I must go there on a fact-finding mission. Does
anybody have any idea what excuse I might give for trespassing into a
high school? I don't know if "I'm reseraching a first-contact SF story
set in Palermo" is going to cut much ice with a school janitor.
David Friedman
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> writes:
> > I don't see why the formal structure can't be provided from a book.
> Because learning styles differ.
> For every person who learns adequately by reading a book, there are
> probably two that learn best by doing things hands-on, and probably
> five that learn best by interacting.
Both of those make sense to me--I find that arguing with people about
things is a good way to learn, in part because it provides motivation.
And the way to learn to program is to do it, going back to the book
every time you need to learn how to do a new sort of thing.
What doesn't make sense to me is the large lecture format.
...
> > I don't know where in the science/humanities range you would put
> > economics, but I've written books that consisted of the content of a
> > course I taught. The only substantial disadvantage someone would have
> > reading the book instead of taking the course, so far as I can see, is
> > not being able to ask questions--but in a large lecture course that
> > usually isn't an option.
> It is much easier to watch the *process* of a problem being worked out
> when someone is doing it at a blackboard and explaining the steps than
> when it is written down in a book.
The author of the book can explain the steps too. And unlike the
blackboard lecture, if you realize at step five that you missed
something in step two, it hasn't been erased yet.
> It is much easier to learn things in small increments. (Exactly what
> constitutes "small" varies by student.)
And a book can teach in small increments.
> It is much easier to learn if you have periodic tests to measure what
> you're learning and to make sure you're not misunderstanding.
That part I agree with. But in some subjects, including much of math and
science, questions have simple answers, so you can do the problems at
the end of the chapter, then check the answers in the back of the book.
In other subjects that doesn't work, and you really need tests graded by
a human, with comments.
> It is much easier to learn if you have mastered the skills appropriate
> to the method of teaching.
That's a fair point, and related to my conjecture that a lot of students
find oral communication much easier and more intuitive than written,
having done a lot more of it. But beyond the difference between written
and oral English, I still don't see why listening to a lecture requires
a significantly different set of skills than reading to a book. In both
cases you are basically processing a text stream.
> It is much easier to learn if you have two perspectives on or
> approaches to the material -- generally, the book's and the teacher's.
Or two books.
Along those lines, I've considered, next time I teach the Econ course
I'm teaching at the moment, using someone else's book instead of mine.
The main problem is that I think the approaches might be different
enough to be confusing rather than helpful.
David Friedman
Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:02:00 GMT, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote:
>
> >I have long been puzzled by the fact that the mass lecture wasn't
> >replaced by the book once printing was a well established technology. On
> >the face of it, the book has enormous advantages.
>
> Some people have to listen to things to learn them.
But tape recordings of lectures, or even video tapes of them, don't seem
to provide an adequate substitute. Which makes me wonder if there is
something going on about "I relate to a live human being, not to a set
of symbols conveying information."
Brian M. Scott
<dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote:
[...]
>But in some subjects, including much of math and
>science, questions have simple answers, so you can do the problems at
>the end of the chapter, then check the answers in the back of the book.
Beyond very elementary material -- the stuff that's really just
computation, not mathematics, like calculus as it's usually
taught -- questions generally do not have simple answers, as the
answer is generally a proof or demonstration of some kind. Even
at the elementary level there should be a significant admixture
of problems that require explanations, not simple answers.
>In other subjects that doesn't work, and you really need tests graded by
>a human, with comments.
I consider this to be true of mathematics and the sciences as
well.
[...]
>But beyond the difference between written
>and oral English, I still don't see why listening to a lecture requires
>a significantly different set of skills than reading to a book. In both
>cases you are basically processing a text stream.
Why should aural processing of a text stream use the same skills
as visual processing? In any case, reading *isn't* processing a
text stream, since one can jump forward and back at will. One
can also slow down and speed up; in a lecture one is constrained
to follow the lecturer's pace. I find them very different in
practice.
[...]
Brian
Mary K. Kuhner
No smiley. I truly am looking for population-genetics demonstrations
or experiments, particularly on genetic drift and selection, that can
be done by a class of 30-40, quickly, in a room with seats in narrow
fixed rows. And for ways to reduce the stupid handwriting and other
transmission errors that continually screwed up this year's experiments.
One thing I know: beans are bad, and next time I'll use coins or
beads. I can't find two colors of beans that are exactly the same
size, and this adds some unwanted "natural selection" to my artificial
situations.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
Catja Pafort <green...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>Mary wrote:
>> I'm grappling with this in my own teaching. I tried having my
>> population genetics students count out real physical beans and
>> do some quick experiments, but the results were discouraging--
>> we kept coming out with impossible results like 2.5 offspring from
>> one mating.
>At least in a German university, to some degree, that would not be
>considered your fault. If *all* of your students walk off, that would be
>a bad thing. But if you're doing your best, and your students keep going
>down the pub, well, that's *their* problem. Not sure how that works out
>in British universities, where the students pay, and universities have a
>vested interest in them coming back the next year and paying more fees.
This was not pub-wandering; we did the experiments in class, with me
handing out little cups of beans and the students shuffling, counting,
selecting, and tabulating. The tabulations kept coming out weird:
I'd have a row of ten students, each (supposedly) holding two beans,
and ask how many red and how many black. (White beans do not work;
they are too different to the touch!) The students would tally, and
tell me that ten people, with two beans each, had 12 red and 7 black.
We could have straightened this out in time, but it seemed hard to
spend so much time.
I think it was a combination of language issues--many non-native
speakers, and procedural talk is surprisingly hard for some people--
people too embarrassed to admit they'd dropped a bean, and my attempts
to squeeze an experiment into an already-full lecture. And bad
handwriting, such that someone's 1 bean might turn into 7 beans.
At least it led to some interesting discussion of scientific error.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Ross TenEyck
>One thing I know: beans are bad, and next time I'll use coins or
>beads. I can't find two colors of beans that are exactly the same
>size, and this adds some unwanted "natural selection" to my artificial
>situations.
Poker chips? They're cheap, come in multiple colors, and are
big enough that it's harder to accidentally drop or misplace
them.
Or perhaps playing cards, but that might introduce confusion
about which aspects of the card you're ignoring (e.g, suit,
rank, color.)
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Chris Johnson
> nobodies, nobody really watches the games (most sports sponsored by the
> ESU are not team sports anyway), and you don't get into University
> because you're a good athlete, because you don't have to get into
> University unless you want to get into Medicine, where they have limited
> access; and there you have an exam. People would bring out knives if
> somebody was given a slot on anything else than by doing very well at
> the entrance exam. All the other faculties, you just walk into the
> office and enrol, and that's it.
Both my parents went to the University of Michigan. That's a suitable
counterpoint: Michigan is _all_ _about_ its sports teams, just as Yale
is known for its cabals and secret societies.
Michigan is one of the Big Ten midwestern colleges, including
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota,
Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin, and the
University of Michigan has a long-standing, bitter and ferocious sports
rivalry with Ohio State. This absolutely defines the character of the
school's culture. You can buy bumper stickers that say "OHOWIHATE OHIO
STATE" and these are actually popular, so closely identified is the
school with the sports rivalry.
I've heard my mom complaining about terrible misdeeds by Ohio State
in the way of seeking (sheltering?) football recruits so violent that
one committed rape and murder! Arrests for disorderly conduct or assault
are more typical. My mom's outrage is certainly colored by the fact that
she (and she's lived on the East Coast for over 30 years) is still a
fanatical UMich fan and still hates Ohio State, but the underlying
factor that led to this embarrassing situation for Ohio State is sheer,
unrelenting competitiveness. Ohio State became so desperate to win at
any cost that they sought out the most aggressive people they could
possibly find, anywhere. Did you know that they recruit heavily from the
states of Florida and California? In these colleges, sports are so
important that they will go right across the country to pick up some
huge aggressive football player, never mind if he's liable to end up in
jail- that's the chance they take, weighted against the prospect of
getting some guy who'll really scare the other teams' players.
It was a US college football player turned pro football coach, Vince
Lombardi, who said "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".
I don't think there's any question that for some US colleges sports
are more than recreation. Hell, at times sports is more important than
the law, much less academic standing.
Chris Johnson
Charlton Wilbur
> What doesn't make sense to me is the large lecture format.
Oh, it doesn't make sense to me either, educationally speaking.
But from a fiscal viewpoint, it makes sense. It gives the students
contact with a real professor, and it gives the TAs something to do --
lead small discussion groups, conduct labs, and the like.
It also makes sense if you look at a university as a certifying body
rather than an educating body. The university certifies that the
student went to the classes and took the tests. The book is a poor
substitute for that.
Charlton
Elizabeth Shack
<dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote:
>In article <87vfwuz...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> writes:
>
>> > I don't know where in the science/humanities range you would put
>> > economics, but I've written books that consisted of the content of a
>> > course I taught. The only substantial disadvantage someone would have
>> > reading the book instead of taking the course, so far as I can see, is
>> > not being able to ask questions--but in a large lecture course that
>> > usually isn't an option.
>
>> It is much easier to watch the *process* of a problem being worked out
>> when someone is doing it at a blackboard and explaining the steps than
>> when it is written down in a book.
>
>The author of the book can explain the steps too. And unlike the
>blackboard lecture, if you realize at step five that you missed
>something in step two, it hasn't been erased yet.
Often, though, when books derive equations, they skip a step or two.
If you've only got the book and you can't figure out how they got from
equation 4 to equation 5, you're pretty much stuck.
But I'd still rather be in that situation than bored in a huge lecture
hall. Professors and TAs have office hours just so students can go
pester them about stuff that didn't make sense in the book. :)
>That's a fair point, and related to my conjecture that a lot of students
>find oral communication much easier and more intuitive than written,
>having done a lot more of it. But beyond the difference between written
>and oral English, I still don't see why listening to a lecture requires
>a significantly different set of skills than reading to a book. In both
>cases you are basically processing a text stream.
Do you find it just as easy to remember and understand information
that you've heard as info that you've read? I think most people have
a preference for one or the other.
I need to see something to remember it. If someone's just talking at
me my mind tends to wander. If I try really hard to pay attention, I
just don't remember what they said. Reading a textbook would be more
efficient than trying to read my notes afterwards.
Then there's things like ice skating, where I need to have the teacher
explain it to me, demonstrate it, then watch me try it and tell me
what I did wrong. And then I still don't get it. :)
--
Elizabeth Shack eas...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~eashack
Busy. Got coffee?
Mary Messall
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 16:57:35 GMT, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >But in some subjects, including much of math and
> >science, questions have simple answers, so you can do the problems at
> >the end of the chapter, then check the answers in the back of the book.
> Beyond very elementary material -- the stuff that's really just
> computation, not mathematics, like calculus as it's usually
> taught -- questions generally do not have simple answers, as the
> answer is generally a proof or demonstration of some kind. Even
> at the elementary level there should be a significant admixture
> of problems that require explanations, not simple answers.
> >In other subjects that doesn't work, and you really need tests graded by
> >a human, with comments.
> I consider this to be true of mathematics and the sciences as
> well.
This is very true. I did a stack of grading 10" thick last week, and it
would have been a *lot* easier if I could have just looked at the
answer and given points if it were right, none if it were wrong. In
reality, it's a mess of partial credit and corrections. It's not fair
(or helpful) to give someone who constructed the whole problem
correctly (and it is a structure) but lost track of a negative sign the
same number of points as someone who didn't even know which equations
to start from, or how to interpret them.
> Why should aural processing of a text stream use the same skills
> as visual processing? In any case, reading *isn't* processing a
> text stream, since one can jump forward and back at will. One
> can also slow down and speed up; in a lecture one is constrained
> to follow the lecturer's pace. I find them very different in
> practice.
Likewise. I have one professor who is an absolutely brilliant lecturer.
He can explain anything. I wish he could teach all my classes. But I
find his published papers tough going.
In the lectures, he can lay out all the pieces of a problem on the
blackboard, and he can point at them and draw arrows between them and
cross bits out and re-write them. He can speak colloquially "This stuff
over here is going to blow up when it gets here." There's no ambiguity
because he can point, and draw pictures, and underline things. You
don't have to flip back and forth looking for numbered equations. He
can even say, "Go to the board" or "Pull out some paper" to us, and
have *us* draw pictures, correcting us as we go. He can do that
Socratic thing where he proves we really knew all along what the answer
had to be, if we could only think about it the right way. It makes all
the difference in the world... At least with math and physics, and with
a good lecturer.
-Mary
Chris Johnson
> population genetics students count out real physical beans and
> do some quick experiments, but the results were discouraging--
> we kept coming out with impossible results like 2.5 offspring from
> one mating.
I occasionally am in a teaching situation as well, but my way of
teaching is extremely personal. I can only teach firehose method to a
seriously dedicated student, or it's useless.
I taught a guy how to write web pages in about four hours. It was a
great bargain for him, but exhausting. After two sessions he could fend
for himself, and didn't need to come back- of course, he'd also learned
where to look to continue learning.
Another time, in a half-hour drive, I taught another guy what
raytracing was, the basic concepts of surface scattering that determine
specular highlights and suggest different rendered textures, and touched
on subsurface scattering as used to depict skin translucency on
cutting-edge Hollywood character animation, which is severely advanced
stuff. Again, the guy followed it but ended up exhausted.
Now that I come to think of it, this is an interesting quality in a
teacher. Maybe I should hire myself out as one. "Learn stuff overnight,
or die trying!" :D
Chris Johnson
Brian Pickrell
>
> I'm grappling with this in my own teaching. I tried having my
> population genetics students count out real physical beans and
> do some quick experiments, but the results were discouraging--
What was the result--that the students didn't come up with the answer
they were told to get, or that they learned something about gathering
data?
David Friedman
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
> Or perhaps playing cards, but that might introduce confusion
> about which aspects of the card you're ignoring (e.g, suit,
> rank, color.)
It might be possible to use that confusion. Do an experiment involving
suit, so people aren't paying attention to number, then at the end see
what has happened to the distribution of numbers.
Mary K. Kuhner
Chris Johnson <jinx...@sover.net> wrote:
> I occasionally am in a teaching situation as well, but my way of
>teaching is extremely personal. I can only teach firehose method to a
>seriously dedicated student, or it's useless.
> I taught a guy how to write web pages in about four hours. It was a
>great bargain for him, but exhausting. After two sessions he could fend
>for himself, and didn't need to come back- of course, he'd also learned
>where to look to continue learning.
[...]
> Now that I come to think of it, this is an interesting quality in a
>teacher. Maybe I should hire myself out as one. "Learn stuff overnight,
>or die trying!" :D
The protagonist of my WIP (it's in progress again, hurrah!) is
trying to set up a school that will teach in a seriously firehose
style and graduate alien-contact trainees in three years. She herself
graduated from a place that turns out starpilots in three years
(and it's an occult skill, a very tricky one).
I presume that by the far-future time of my novel they have learned a
*lot* about educational methods. I have a few glimpses of the human aspect
in my stories--that it's hard on the students, that there are predictable
crisis points ("Usually in the third quarter," says Analee, "but his
classmates don't like him either so I'm guessing second quarter"),
that it's a massively worldview-changing experience.
But I don't know, and of course can't really know, what they are actually
doing. I'd be interested in any comments of yours on "firehose teaching"
that might get a little more substance into my portrayal. (Also
any comments from Clarion grads; there's definitely a resemblance.)
One weakness of the WIP first draft was that the students and their
studies didn't even achieve cardboard; they were just painted directly
on the backdrop with spray paint, and crudely at that. I need to do
a lot more in that direction or it's not worth having them at all.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
David Friedman
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
But a book plus tests can provide certification. And in practice, at
least in my experience, they don't take attendance at lectures, so can't
certify that you came to them.
Blake A. Loyd
"Mary K. Kuhner" <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:b8rscl$10gg$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu...
> No smiley. I truly am looking for population-genetics
demonstrations
> or experiments, particularly on genetic drift and selection, that
can
> be done by a class of 30-40, quickly, in a room with seats in narrow
> fixed rows. And for ways to reduce the stupid handwriting and other
> transmission errors that continually screwed up this year's
experiments.
>
> One thing I know: beans are bad, and next time I'll use coins or
> beads. I can't find two colors of beans that are exactly the same
> size, and this adds some unwanted "natural selection" to my
artificial
> situations.
>
Mary,
I can understand the problem with the beans. Beads work well and
are inexpensive. Walmart crafts area is where I got loads of them for
10th grade biology classes. I don't know what level you are teaching
and therefore don't know what level math background your students
have. The higher the level the more indepth you should be able to go.
As far as the thirty or forty students in one class, I'd suggest
using pennies. They flip one penny each to determine the allele
frequency in the generation. Only have about ten in a group, divide
the class accordingly. You do the math on the chalkboard or dry erase
board. The dry erase may be better if you have several color pens to
track the individual groups as they go through several
generations(coin flips).
The point being made can be attenuated in class by only using two
people, one coin each. They mate the coins by flipping them to
produce the offspring's alleles(H and T). They produce two offspring.
Once an offspring is allozygous one person's coin is eliminated for
that round. If two identical allozyotes occur all further mating will
only produce the same thing, so genetic drift has occurred. It may
happen that you get one allozygous offspring and one heterozygous one
and the next turn of flipping a coin gives you two heterozygous
offspring, and it is theoretically possible that the flipping could go
on for hours, not likely but possible.
If using the two coin technique, a simple double column on the
board to keep track of the offspring should suffice. You can try this
for yourself with one coin and I would suggest doing so before trying
it in class. (1)On a piece of paper make a double column. (2) At the
top of the column put an HT on each side, they are the heterozygous
parents. (3)Flip a coin twice and list the results beneath the HT on
the left. Flip the coin twice more and list the results beneath the HT
on the right. (4) If one of the results is HH or TT, on the next line
in the column distribute the HH or the TT one H or one T to each side
of the column and flip the coin to get the second letter for the left
hand side and then flip the coin again to get the second letter for
the right hand side. or (5) If one side has HH and the other side has
TT distribute an H to each side and a T to each side of the next row.
That is equivalent to the starting point, so basically start again.
(6)You end when both sides are HH or both are TT. Then there is no
more variation in the population and your genetic drift has occurred
and locked in. Remember, drift occurs more rapidly in smaller finite
populations
If you wish to, you may email me by the 'Reply' button and I'll
see what I can dredge up for you instead of posting it here. I'm
pretty sure I have my old lesson plans but I doubt I could find them,
packed away somewhere. It has been a while so I am a little rusty,
but I had to go through pretty much the same type stuff with my tenth
graders. Though, I did have use of a lab and an hour to spend letting
them flip coins and fill out the charts I provided. But back then I
didn't have the internet as a resource.
Excuse the use of the word flip for the coins. I should have
said, 'shake in cupped together hands.' You let them start flipping
the coins and you'll spend have the time chasing coins around on the
floor, or they will. All they have to do is stop shaking the coin and
open the hand out flat to see whether it is heads or tails. Points
might be taken away if they can't follow the instructions not to flip
the coins but to shake them instead. It might just keep you from
wanting to pull your hair out and go screaming from the room. Have
them bring their own penny but have some for those that forget.
Loyd
Brian M. Scott
<cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> writes:
>> What doesn't make sense to me is the large lecture format.
>Oh, it doesn't make sense to me either, educationally speaking.
>But from a fiscal viewpoint, it makes sense. It gives the students
>contact with a real professor, and it gives the TAs something to do --
>lead small discussion groups, conduct labs, and the like.
And of course if the university is hard up and has only a
master's program (and hence no real TAs), fiscal pressure leads
to sections of 45 or 60 handled entirely by the professor. One
learns to deal with it, but it certainly isn't my preferred way
to teach.
[...]
Brian
Lucy Kemnitzer
Dal Dan) wrote:
>Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@startouch.net> wrote:
>
>> this is a book. this is a wonderful character. you should write a
>> novel on it, anna
>>
>> i suspect you'd get top passing grades. <G>
>
>eh. Right now, I am busy incorporating Emiliano, his family, Mary you
>should buy this book and Italian SF conventions*, as well as Falcone's
>funerals, in a first contact story set in Palermo. I invented this
>fictional "Liceo Scientifico Statale Guglielmo Marconi", but Emiliano
>informed me that one of Palermo's Scientific Liceum _is_ actually called
>"Guglielmo Marconi". I must go there on a fact-finding mission. Does
>anybody have any idea what excuse I might give for trespassing into a
>high school? I don't know if "I'm reseraching a first-contact SF story
>set in Palermo" is going to cut much ice with a school janitor.
>
It might. But you should call in advance and talk to whoever really
decides these things (in the US it would likely be an assistant
principal), and explain that you would just like to look at the place
for background for a novel, and offer to share a piece of your (more
innoccuous) writing and to acknowledge them in the book.
Schools at least hereabouts are under a great deal ofpressure to
account for every body on campus. Which means they have to go through
Procedures For Visitors. But I've not heard people having much
trouble with it.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Warrick M. Locke
wrote:
Yes. One of the very few excuses for flashbacks is embedded in this.
Start with the professor dead on the beach with a book on his lap --
which book, I wonder? -- and the reactions of his students and intimates.
Back up to his teaching procedures, back up to his starting the job, and
keep backing until we discover he started life as a Bond-type spy, or
perhaps an enforcer for the Mob.
Regards,
Ric
Charlton Wilbur
> But a book plus tests can provide certification. And in practice, at
> least in my experience, they don't take attendance at lectures, so
> can't certify that you came to them.
No, but look at this from the point of view of two entities.
First, the student who really doesn't care about learning but who
wants to get the degree so that he can go on to make kerjillions of
dollars. He prefers the lecture to the book, because he can use the
lecture to figure out what the professor finds important; and if he
feels like sleeping through the lecture, he can always fall back on
the book. Plus, there are lots of other people in the class, so he
can study with them. If he had to learn from a book, he'd probably
not be motivated sufficiently to learn enough for a certification
test. He definitely prefers the lecture class to the book (though
he'd probably prefer sleeping in to either).
Second, the university as certifying body. They'd like to charge as
much as they can for that certification, and they do this by providing
a lecture course. The certification isn't that you went to the
lectures, but that you learned the material, as shown by your
performance on the tests. The lectures are just there to justify an
inflated price for the certification. Universities cater largely to
students who are more interested in the degree than in the learning,
and it's to their advantage to offer a relatively painless way to
learn the material.
In fact, this just occurred to me. You can look at the lecture course
as a book plus a certifying exam or exams. As it happens, there's a
bonus additional way to review the material: if you show up twice or
three times a week, you get to hear someone explain parts of the book
that you're supposed to learn the material in.
Charlton
Ed Schoenfeld
> From: David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.com>
> Organization: Verio
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.composition
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 17:00:06 GMT
> Subject: Re: school years
More likely the lecturer is varying the presentation to respond to perceived
needs of the students present. This makes even large lectures somewhat
interactive, at least as compared to books and tape.
Interestingly (well to me -- I'm weird) the 'lecture' was originally a
reading (as the word implies) -- the teachers would read out a work (with
commentary) for students to copy.
Ed
Chris Johnson
> doing. I'd be interested in any comments of yours on "firehose teaching"
> that might get a little more substance into my portrayal. (Also
> any comments from Clarion grads; there's definitely a resemblance.)
Here's what it's like...
You have to be fairly 'on', and it works best when it's a subject
you've been immersed in yourself recently. It's more than a little like
programming, where you spend 6 hours just sorting out the whole complex
interaction of the program in your head, and then continue until you
drop.
It's helpful if the other person has some basic understanding or at
least familiarity with what they're to learn- they need to have seen it
from the outside, looked it over, maybe thought about it a little. Only
some people can take the role of the learner. One person was an
accountant for a print shop, and ran his own model train part selling
business on the side, and had already hired someone to make a website
for that business and was hot to learn how to handle that stuff himself.
Another was the head of Health Care and Rehabilitation Services, sort of
a top-level administrator used to running a social services agency.
These are generally the people who could probably have figured it out
themselves in a few extra months, so the firehosing isn't strictly a
matter of pressure alone. Suction is also indicated :)
For your alien-contact trainees there's gotta be a coherent but
non-obvious set of learnings to be had. The way the firehose style works
is, the teacher has everything totally fresh and in mind- specifically,
from having done advanced work in that very field that morning or
yesterday or half an hour ago- and the student is prepared to pick up
the inner logic of it, and the details can be brushed up later at
leisure.
For the web, the logic is:
-this file is text, but is read by a browser
-this is a 'tag', also an 'off tag' ( <i>italics</i> )
-formatting- this is a carriage return, here's why it's not reading
the ones in the text file. Look, a block quote! Here's a 'table' which
is like an area on the page.
-images, settings like background image/color
For the raytracing conversation, the thread was
-look, a picture I made! Computer generated.
-it's a raytracing- it draws this shape and reflects lights off it.
-for each pixel, it shoots off a 'ray' into the picture and sees if
it would intersect an object.
-if it would bounce directly off an object and into a light, it's
drawn as a highlight
-if it's not quite directly reflecting into a light, the surface
texture determines how much highlight is there- rough surfaces scatter
light more, and will broaden the highlight area. Polished surfaces don't
scatter light as much and reflect a more focussed highlight.
-you can make a surface metallic in appearance by having the
highlight take on the color of the object
-for that matter, human skin is partly translucent, and rendering
THAT requires subsurface scattering, as if skin is slightly transparent,
which it is *etc etc*
See? It's never an unrelated series of dull facts. The flow of
'firehose' learning is like a chain of reasoning- computer picture,
modelled object, 'rays', reflection directly toward a light, INdirect
reflection toward a light, ways the color of the light can be modified-
each bit builds off the previous.
The trick to being a gifted teacher in this style is the ability to
instantly identify what links in the chain haven't been covered, because
it'll all fall apart if that happens. The teacher will ask quite bluntly
if the student knows or 'gets' a particular point, and will generally
carry on as if they are God of the Subject Matter- which they have to be
or they can't convey the chain of inferences that deftly and rapidly.
The student has to get his/her jollies off being a quick study, and may
be repeatedly taken aback by demands to confirm they understand
something they only heard 20 seconds ago. Such demands will be in the
form of very specific relevant practical questions that, to an expert in
the field, are central to the subject and not in any way trick
questions- if they get an odd answer in any way, more background must be
covered. If the answer checks out perfectly, the subject is rapidly
expanded to the next point in its internal structure, just as 'surface
scattering' derives from 'a ray that reflects directly into a light
produces a highlight' which derives from 'you can shine a ray into a
picture and see if it would intersect a modelled object'.
How's that, is that any help? It might be the advice from hell
because you'd have to have a thoroughly logical and sensible imaginary
curriculum that's structured, NOT just a vast collection of unrelated
facts. However, if you can carry it off, it'll be exciting to the reader
because they'll get to be swept up in the experience and will end up
KNOWING the subject. Hey, Klingon ended up being a functional language...
Chris Johnson
Neil Barnes
"Blake A. Loyd" <bal...@btconline.net> wrote:
> You do the math on the
> chalkboard or dry erase board.
A diversion if i may?
Whence came the word 'chalkboard'? What happened to 'blackboard',
which if I recall my schooldays properly, describes the colour of
the beast? Equally, 'dry erase board' seems a clumsy construct to
these European ears...
I'm not suggesting that Blake has a poor choice of word - I
strongly suspect that some political mandate is indacated - but
it does seem an odd choice of phrase rather than 'you can do the
maths on the board' which seems to cover all cases.
--
First they came for the verbs and I said nothing, for verbing
weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns and I speech
nothing, for I no verbs. - Peter Ellis
Neil
Blake A. Loyd
"Neil Barnes" <nailed_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8t07o$d26qn$1...@ID-123172.news.dfncis.de...
> Previously, in news:UIhsa.1044$c02....@eagle.america.net,
> "Blake A. Loyd" <bal...@btconline.net> wrote:
>
> > You do the math on the
> > chalkboard or dry erase board.
>
> A diversion if i may?
>
> Whence came the word 'chalkboard'? What happened to 'blackboard',
> which if I recall my schooldays properly, describes the colour of
> the beast? Equally, 'dry erase board' seems a clumsy construct to
> these European ears...
Years ago green chalk boards were installed in some schools. To call
such a board a blackboard would be a misnomer. Whether the board is
green black or some other color chalk board covers it. Dry erase
boards are sheets of formica or some similar plastic. There are
special assorted color markers for use on those boards. All that it
takes to erase the board is to wipe it with a dry cloth or dry eraser.
The dry erase markers don't leave permanent marks on the board like
magic markers do.
>
> I'm not suggesting that Blake has a poor choice of word - I
> strongly suspect that some political mandate is indacated - but
> it does seem an odd choice of phrase rather than 'you can do the
> maths on the board' which seems to cover all cases.
>
There was no political mandate as far as I know. It just doesn't make
sense to call a green colored board a blackboard. And for some
reason, at least when I was teaching, no one called them green boards.
As far as I know chalkboard and blackboard were always interchangeble
for the black slate boards, and I assume the chalkboard term hung on
as it also applied equally well to a green colored board.
>
Loyd
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Equally, 'dry erase board' seems a clumsy construct to
> these European ears...
I just call 'em whiteboards, myself.
--
Heather Anne Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other.
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> It might. But you should call in advance and talk to whoever really
> decides these things (in the US it would likely be an assistant
> principal), and explain that you would just like to look at the place
> for background for a novel, and offer to share a piece of your (more
> innoccuous) writing and to acknowledge them in the book.
It's a story! In English! A _Science Fiction_ story!
> Schools at least hereabouts are under a great deal ofpressure to
> account for every body on campus. Which means they have to go through
> Procedures For Visitors. But I've not heard people having much
> trouble with it.
Same here, but actually, I suspect that if you walk in like somebody
who's got somewhere to go nobody's going to challenge you. But the best
thing would be to arrange matters to go along with Emiliano when he goes
to give an Amnesty talk, as it's bound to happen sooner or later. I've
seen most of Padua's high schools that way.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@despammed.com - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
David Friedman
Ed Schoenfeld <ejscho...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Interestingly (well to me -- I'm weird) the 'lecture' was originally a
> reading (as the word implies) -- the teachers would read out a work (with
> commentary) for students to copy.
Which is part of why I am puzzled at the lecture surviving so long after
printing provided a cheaper way of making copies.
Irina Rempt
> mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in message
> news:
>
>>
>> I'm grappling with this in my own teaching. I tried having my
>> population genetics students count out real physical beans and
>> do some quick experiments, but the results were discouraging--
>
> What was the result--that the students didn't come up with the answer
> they were told to get, or that they learned something about gathering
> data?
Knowing Mary, it's unlikely that she tells her students to come up with
a particular answer.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/~irina/foundobjects/ Latest: 11-Mar-2003
Catja Pafort
> Years ago green chalk boards were installed in some schools. To call
> such a board a blackboard would be a misnomer.
But we still talk about hoovers even when it's a Dyson; when I take a
cab I will step into a hackney carriage of the horseless kind and life
is *full* of words that have expanded to take on a new meaning. I mean,
I'm using a computer mouse, when 'thing you move with your hand that
moves an image on your computer screen' would be *so* much more
accurate.
I mean, the German word is 'Tafel' and it's got nothing to do with the
laden table you'd otherwise expect!
Catja
Catja Pafort
> Ed Schoenfeld <ejscho...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Interestingly (well to me -- I'm weird) the 'lecture' was originally a
> > reading (as the word implies) -- the teachers would read out a work (with
> > commentary) for students to copy.
>
> Which is part of why I am puzzled at the lecture surviving so long after
> printing provided a cheaper way of making copies.
Because the moment students could get their hands on their own copies of
the book, it was no longer necessary for the lecturer to read from the
book; it freed his time to do other things.
In Geography, most lectures use _at the very least_ a good selection of
slides. More advanced lecturers have their powerpoint shows at the
ready.
Catja
Irina Rempt
> Blake wrote:
>
>> Years ago green chalk boards were installed in some schools. To call
>> such a board a blackboard would be a misnomer.
I don't object to a green blackboard any more than I object to a brown
blackbird. It's not a "black board", a board that is black, it's "a
blackboard", a board for a specific purpose, all instances of which
were black when it was named. It's the *name* of the thing.
> But we still talk about hoovers even when it's a Dyson; when I take a
> cab I will step into a hackney carriage of the horseless kind and life
> is *full* of words that have expanded to take on a new meaning.
Exactly.
> I'm using a computer mouse, when 'thing you move with your hand
> that moves an image on your computer screen' would be *so* much more
> accurate.
Our eldest called that "mouse machine" at two or so to distinguish it
from furry mice, alive or toy.
> I mean, the German word is 'Tafel' and it's got nothing to do with the
> laden table you'd otherwise expect!
Isn't that "Tisch" in German?
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Previously, in news:UIhsa.1044$c02....@eagle.america.net,
>"Blake A. Loyd" <bal...@btconline.net> wrote:
>
>> You do the math on the
>> chalkboard or dry erase board.
>
>A diversion if i may?
>
>Whence came the word 'chalkboard'? What happened to 'blackboard',
>which if I recall my schooldays properly, describes the colour of
>the beast? Equally, 'dry erase board' seems a clumsy construct to
>these European ears...
Some chalkboards are green.
>I'm not suggesting that Blake has a poor choice of word - I
>strongly suspect that some political mandate is indacated - but
>it does seem an odd choice of phrase rather than 'you can do the
>maths on the board' which seems to cover all cases.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Handmade Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Marilee J. Layman
Pafort) wrote:
>Blake wrote:
>
>> Years ago green chalk boards were installed in some schools. To call
>> such a board a blackboard would be a misnomer.
>
>But we still talk about hoovers even when it's a Dyson;
Well, *you* do. In the US, we call 'em vacuum cleaners.
Doug Dawson
>On 2 May 2003 05:38:00 GMT, Neil Barnes <nailed_...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Previously, in news:UIhsa.1044$c02....@eagle.america.net,
>>"Blake A. Loyd" <bal...@btconline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You do the math on the
>>> chalkboard or dry erase board.
>>
>>A diversion if i may?
>>
>>Whence came the word 'chalkboard'? What happened to 'blackboard',
>>which if I recall my schooldays properly, describes the colour of
>>the beast? Equally, 'dry erase board' seems a clumsy construct to
>>these European ears...
>
>Some chalkboards are green.
Indeed. Around here, most of them are. Instead of "dry erase board,"
"whiteboard" gets used most often. (Or "yellowboard" in the case of
one particular board.) Just "board" gets used a fair amount as well.
Mary K. Kuhner
Brian Pickrell <bobth...@brandx.net> wrote:
>mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in message news:
>> I'm grappling with this in my own teaching. I tried having my
>> population genetics students count out real physical beans and
>> do some quick experiments, but the results were discouraging--
>What was the result--that the students didn't come up with the answer
>they were told to get, or that they learned something about gathering
>data?
That the better students were amused by a lesson on data error, and
the weaker students, about whom I was particularly concerned, were just
confused as hell and even more convinced that this subject doesn't
make any intuitive sense.
I had hoped to strengthen that intuitive sense, so I was disappointed.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
James F. Cornwall
>
> Previously, in news:UIhsa.1044$c02....@eagle.america.net,
> "Blake A. Loyd" <bal...@btconline.net> wrote:
>
> > You do the math on the
> > chalkboard or dry erase board.
>
> A diversion if i may?
>
> Whence came the word 'chalkboard'? What happened to 'blackboard',
> which if I recall my schooldays properly, describes the colour of
> the beast? Equally, 'dry erase board' seems a clumsy construct to
> these European ears...
>
We had ones that were a dark green in color rather than black.
Jim C
> I'm not suggesting that Blake has a poor choice of word - I
> strongly suspect that some political mandate is indacated - but
> it does seem an odd choice of phrase rather than 'you can do the
> maths on the board' which seems to cover all cases.
>
> --
> First they came for the verbs and I said nothing, for verbing
> weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns and I speech
> nothing, for I no verbs. - Peter Ellis
>
> Neil
--
****************************************************
** Facilior veniam posterius quam prius capere! **
****************************************************
** James F. Cornwall, sole owner of all opinions **
** expressed in this message... **
****************************************************
James F. Cornwall
>
> Blake wrote:
>
> > Years ago green chalk boards were installed in some schools. To call
> > such a board a blackboard would be a misnomer.
>
> cab I will step into a hackney carriage of the horseless kind and life
> I'm using a computer mouse, when 'thing you move with your hand that
> moves an image on your computer screen' would be *so* much more
> accurate.
>
See, over here that sucky sort of machine would be more often referred
to as a 'vacuum cleaner' (or just 'vacuum') than a hoover, unless you
were talking about the specific Hoover brand. From my viewpoint as a
kid in elementary school, I would have been asking the teachers why they
called it a blackboard when it's obviously green...
Jim
> I mean, the German word is 'Tafel' and it's got nothing to do with the
> laden table you'd otherwise expect!
>
> Catja
Brian M. Scott
in news:k2osa.1071$c02....@eagle.america.net in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> It just
> doesn't make sense to call a green colored board a
> blackboard.
Doesn't bother me to do so. It's a compound, like 'blackmail',
not a two-word phrase. For me the term refers to a function: a
blackboard is a hard, smooth surface on which one writes with
chalk, usually in an academic setting.
[...]
Brian (not likely to change after 50 years of using the term)
Catja Pafort
> > I mean, the German word is 'Tafel' and it's got nothing to do with the
> > laden table you'd otherwise expect!
>
> Isn't that "Tisch" in German?
'Tisch' is the every day, ordinary object. 'Tafel' is the special-event,
posh, laden with food variety.
Catja
David Friedman
green...@cix.co.uk (Catja Pafort) wrote:
> > Which is part of why I am puzzled at the lecture surviving so long after
> > printing provided a cheaper way of making copies.
>
> Because the moment students could get their hands on their own copies of
> the book, it was no longer necessary for the lecturer to read from the
> book; it freed his time to do other things.
They were still doing it in the 18th century, according to Adam Smith.
Of course, it was in a passage complaining about how bad the teaching
was at places such as Oxford--in his list of ways in which professors
can pretend to do their job with as little work as possible.
Neil Barnes
Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2003 14:41:12 +0100, green...@cix.co.uk
> (Catja Pafort) wrote:
>
>>Blake wrote:
>>
>>> Years ago green chalk boards were installed in some schools.
>>> To call such a board a blackboard would be a misnomer.
>>
>>But we still talk about hoovers even when it's a Dyson;
>
> Well, *you* do. In the US, we call 'em vacuum cleaners.
>
We call ours Edgar.