In article <2mr7ej$...@crl2.crl.com>, ro...@crl.com (William H. Rowan) writes:
> Well, lots of blame to go around. Nice to know that teachers are doing > their best to stay competent, insisting on standards for their own ranks, > taking those teacher-competency math exams and not complaining that they > aren't fair.
Hello people!!!! Can we please kill this thread? Do your collective egos really need to know that you are smarter than various other professions? Why is this in any way important? Additionally, can you please in the future check the cross-postings. This is in no way relevant to soc.men, soc.women, misc.legal, misc.jobs. They have all complained about it. It began, in fact, in rec.puzzles as a discussion of the irrelevance of IQ tests, and even we don't want it any more. It has simply turned into a flame fest, and it would be greatly appreciated if you would confine it to mail or some other form of less public bickering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- spu...@pomona.claremont.edu| A better question: Sco4tt "Fool" Purdy | Who's smarter? Monty Hall or Pomona College | a perfect logician with blue eyes? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
In article <1994Mar23.221222.1@pomona> spu...@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
#In article <2mr7ej$...@crl2.crl.com>, ro...@crl.com (William H. Rowan) writes: #> Well, lots of blame to go around. Nice to know that teachers are doing #> their best to stay competent, insisting on standards for their own ranks, #> taking those teacher-competency math exams and not complaining that they #> aren't fair. # # Hello people!!!! Can we please kill this thread? Do your collective #egos really need to know that you are smarter than various other professions? #Why is this in any way important?
Let me guess... you wouldn't happen to be an education major, would you? ;)
- db
-- ****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ****** ****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ****** ****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ****** *************************************************************************
In article <Cn6G1D....@uwindsor.ca> bouc...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes: >In article <1994Mar23.221222.1@pomona> spu...@pomona.claremont.edu writes: >#In article <2mr7ej$...@crl2.crl.com>, ro...@crl.com (William H. Rowan) writes: >#> Well, lots of blame to go around. Nice to know that teachers are doing >#> their best to stay competent, insisting on standards for their own ranks, >#> taking those teacher-competency math exams and not complaining that they >#> aren't fair. ># ># Hello people!!!! Can we please kill this thread? Do your collective >#egos really need to know that you are smarter than various other professions? >#Why is this in any way important?
>Let me guess... you wouldn't happen to be an education major, would you? ;)
>- db
>-- >****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ****** >****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ****** >****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ****** >*************************************************************************
Talk about educational quality is something educators had to do. Sure, let us not talk about it. In the meantime, why do some states have much lower SAT scores than others? I claim the reason is cultural, and it is necessary to discuss it on a soc.culture.usa board. Of course, others around here seem to think the nature of the penis is most important to waste bandwidth on, but then we all know sex sells. The good old USA culture wants only limited educational success despite whate those of you who want to kill the thread hope to prove. As for limiting it culture.usa, this is a good idea. I have no idea who started cross-posting anyway.
-- # George Conklin; Geo...@NCCU.EDU | Edison did not have a fancy # # N. C. Central University | internet signature. # # Durham, North Carolina USA | That means that I cannot either # # 919 560-6222 (work) | since he didn't tell me how. #
In article <2m70oe$...@klaava.Helsinki.FI> izrai...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Vera Izrailit) writes: >??? Anybody can do well in physical science classes too, if they make an >effort.
As an educator in the physical sciences I have to disagree with you. I have seen a number of people who made a genuine effort but just could not grasp what was taught to them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Morgan (Morg) Jones
>C'mon, physicists have an _understanding_ of where the beauty of >a rose comes from? Surely Feynman would be the last person on the >planet to claim such a thing! He certainly had an appreciation >of the _models_ used in description of the rose, and that's what >he was discussing with his neighbor.
I believe that the original poster meant to imply that the physicist had an understanding of the complexity of the rose as well as an appreciation for it's beauty. This combined understanding and appreciation makes for a greater overall appreciation of the rose. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Morgan (Morg) Jones
Morgan (Morg) Jones (MAJO...@CHEMISTRY.watstar.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: >??? Anybody can do well in physical science classes too, if they make an : >effort.
: As an educator in the physical sciences I have to disagree with : you. I have seen a number of people who made a genuine effort but just : could not grasp what was taught to them. : --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Maybe they didn't make enough of an effort? I guess I shouldn't comment on the issue (not being an educator of any kind) but it seems to me that anyone can understand anything that can be explained, if they put enough effort to it. The other problem, of course, is that in order to understand something some people need to apply so much effort that it's not worth doing...
Anyway, my point was: I don't see any difference in 'hardness' between social sciences, humanities, math, and natural sciences. In any of those science there are people who don't do well, but I think that the problem is not that there is no way they can do well, but that the amount of effort that they would require to do well is not comparable with their enthusiasm for the subject.
-- --Vera Izrailit-------izrai...@kruuna.helsinki.fi-- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,, o Kill files are for weenies! '''''''''' . vvvvvvvvvvvv ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ,, ) ,''''''''''''''''' / /''+,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ' < ) < ) ''' '''
In article <2n3u4f$...@klaava.Helsinki.FI> izrai...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Vera Izrailit) writes: >Boucher David (bouc...@server.uwindsor.ca) wrote:
>: No matter how much effort they make, there are some people who are >: not going to do as well as others. Most people are not going to be >: able to perform as well as a Michael Jordan or a Bonnie Blair, or >: even as well as the best high-school athletes, no matter how much >: effort they put into it. The reason why is obvious to most people -- >: it's because people's bodies are different, such that some people are >: more endowed with the hereditary physical characteristics that make >: their efforts more effective.
>: So why do some people object so strenuously to the consideration >: that the same may be true with respect to mental efforts?
>The point was not about being a Bobbie Blair or an Albert Einstein; it was >about being able to pass a college first-year math or physics class; and I >still maintain that anyone (without a learning disability) can do that.
Even with a learning disability, you can pass a first year sociology or humanities class.
>It's the same as: not anyone can be an Olympic champion or even the best >high-school athlete, but any healthy person can run 100 meters.
: No matter how much effort they make, there are some people who are : not going to do as well as others. Most people are not going to be : able to perform as well as a Michael Jordan or a Bonnie Blair, or : even as well as the best high-school athletes, no matter how much : effort they put into it. The reason why is obvious to most people -- : it's because people's bodies are different, such that some people are : more endowed with the hereditary physical characteristics that make : their efforts more effective.
: So why do some people object so strenuously to the consideration : that the same may be true with respect to mental efforts?
The point was not about being a Bobbie Blair or an Albert Einstein; it was about being able to pass a college first-year math or physics class; and I still maintain that anyone (without a learning disability) can do that.
It's the same as: not anyone can be an Olympic champion or even the best high-school athlete, but any healthy person can run 100 meters.
-- --Vera Izrailit-------izrai...@kruuna.helsinki.fi-- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,, o Kill files are for weenies! '''''''''' . vvvvvvvvvvvv ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ,, ) ,''''''''''''''''' / /''+,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ' < ) < ) ''' '''
Bao Dinh Nguyen (b...@redwood.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >The point was not about being a Bobbie Blair or an Albert Einstein; it was : >about being able to pass a college first-year math or physics class; and I : >still maintain that anyone (without a learning disability) can do that. : >
: Even with a learning disability, you can pass a first year sociology or : humanities class.
I guess with some learning disabilities you can pass a first-year math or physics class as well.
: >It's the same as: not anyone can be an Olympic champion or even the best : >high-school athlete, but any healthy person can run 100 meters.
: mathematics:humanities::olympics:high school PE
Evidence?
-- --Vera Izrailit-------izrai...@kruuna.helsinki.fi-- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,, o Kill files are for weenies! '''''''''' . vvvvvvvvvvvv ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ,, ) ,''''''''''''''''' / /''+,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ' < ) < ) ''' '''
In article <1994Mar28.221002.10...@math.ucla.edu> b...@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bao Dinh Nguyen) writes:
>mathematics:humanities::olympics:high school PE
Faulty analogy, perhaps due to a faulty humanities education. Given your disdain for the institutionalization of humanities education, you ought to have written:
mathematics classes:humanities classes::olympics:high school PE
But even so, your need to categorize complex phenomena such as math (classes) and humanities (classes) into a simplistic hierarchy, says a great deal more about your faulty education (and your unmerited desire for academic/intellectual elitism ?) than about the substance and value of knowledge.
Well, I have always considered mathematical ability to be a measure of intelligence. I could add to this but I am going to wait and deal with responses to the above. :D
In article <2n3u4f$...@klaava.Helsinki.FI> izrai...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Vera Izrailit) writes: >Boucher David (bouc...@server.uwindsor.ca) wrote:
>: No matter how much effort they make, there are some people who are >: not going to do as well as others. Most people are not going to be >: able to perform as well as a Michael Jordan or a Bonnie Blair, or >: even as well as the best high-school athletes, no matter how much >: effort they put into it. The reason why is obvious to most people -- >: it's because people's bodies are different, such that some people are >: more endowed with the hereditary physical characteristics that make >: their efforts more effective.
>: So why do some people object so strenuously to the consideration >: that the same may be true with respect to mental efforts?
>The point was not about being a Bobbie Blair or an Albert Einstein; it was >about being able to pass a college first-year math or physics class; and I >still maintain that anyone (without a learning disability) can do that.
Well, given current trends in grade inflation that might be true. When I taught freshman chemistry I was told flat-out that I could not flunk more than a certain percentage of the class no matter how poorly they learned. I would estimate that my students were of at least average intelligence, but very few of them were capable of understanding the material. I don't believe that the students were unusually stupid (or "learning-disabled") -- I believe that college chemistry is very difficult relative to the average person's ability to understand.
One of my former professors got so disgusted with the general level of performance of students that he wrote a computer program called CHIMP -- for any given score on a multiple choice exam, the program would compute the probability that that score could have been beaten by a chimp selecting answers at random -- and when he gave the students their grades, he also gave them their chimp scores. On the average, most of the students would have been beaten by the chimp about 30% of the time (Needless to say, this prof was not very well-liked). I suppose that was rather cruel, but is it any less cruel to con people into believing that they understand the material when they actually don't?
>It's the same as: not anyone can be an Olympic champion or even the best >high-school athlete, but any healthy person can run 100 meters.
Only if you define anyone who can't do it as "unhealthy", or if you don't care how fast they "run" it. ;)
- db
-- ****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ****** ****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ****** ****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ****** *************************************************************************
In article <CnHnuw....@uwindsor.ca> bouc...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes: >I taught freshman chemistry I was told flat-out that I could not flunk >more than a certain percentage of the class no matter how poorly they >learned.
Why are there limitations like that? Who imposes them? And what is a reasonable standard? It appears as though most standards are set by individual instructors. With that type of approach, trying "to put the world right" on your own will result in a rapid falling off of students in your courses, and probably non-renewal of your contract if you are not tenured.
Because of the importance to a student of their documented performance it also means that people teaching difficult subjects will be constantly petitioned to set the standard so that getting an A in XXX is no more difficult than in YYY, as they are of the same credit load. If this is not the case students to some extent are being treated unfairly as grad schools and employers will look at the GPA in making decisions. I suppose you could inflate the credit load of courses that were very hard -- after all the credit load is supposed to measure the time taken by an average student to handle that class (both contact and private study).
Of course setting "equitable" standards between faculties would be well nigh impossible, and also getting some parity between institutions is not really possible either I suppose... From a teaching end it can become a bit of a problem, because often it would be better for some students understanding of a subject for them to repeat the course rather than progress, but the above issues indicate that enforcing this is difficult. Perhaps it would be possible to offer exact the same course to 2nd year students (and so on) under a new course code, with the restrictions that they cannot enter with a B or higher. The exams would be the same as the first course, but with substantially tougher grading. And of course one could put minimum grade prerequisites on entering the subsequent courses. You haven't failed them, just made them do the course again, and you are not treating them unfairly with regard to other degree courses.
>(or "learning-disabled") -- I believe that college chemistry is very >difficult relative to the average person's ability to understand.
This of course creates ever increasing problems for those teaching subsequent courses in the subject...
>One of my former professors got so disgusted with the general >level of performance of students that he wrote a computer program >called CHIMP -- for any given score on a multiple choice exam,
He should have got a job in PR!!! I'd agree that there isn't much point in rubbing someone's face in it -- telling them the minium pass score could have done the trick, without the added humiliation. Although I can understand, that after having gone through years of frustration one might want to "make a statement": Although perhaps it was to the wrong audience - why not to those imposing the minimum number of fails? (either that or take a holiday.)
>but is it any less cruel to con people into believing that they >understand the material when they actually don't?
This is perhaps the most frightening bit of it. It also appears to me that the level of confidence is generally inversely related to actual understanding. With reasonable grades to back up your slightly above average student (grade-wise) who doesn't have a clue this individual will be in a position to do some real damage after a couple of years of climbing up the corporate ladder (the poblem seems to me to be more accute in business settings, as in technical areas progression is slower, and those who don't know don't usually make very rapid progress to power and responsiblity).
CREATED SHIVA (fchap...@sun1.iusb.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Well, I have always considered mathematical ability to be a measure of : intelligence.
I've known a lot of people who were (in my opinion and in opinion of everyone around) very intelligent, but with a poor mathematical ability. On the other hand, I don't know if they *really* had poor math ability, or if they just disliked math.
-- --Vera Izrailit-------izrai...@kruuna.helsinki.fi-- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,, o Kill files are for weenies! '''''''''' . vvvvvvvvvvvv ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ,, ) ,''''''''''''''''' / /''+,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ' < ) < ) ''' '''
: Well, given current trends in grade inflation that might be true. When : I taught freshman chemistry I was told flat-out that I could not flunk : more than a certain percentage of the class no matter how poorly they : learned.
Can you at least give them an 'incomplete'?
: I would estimate that my students were of at least average : intelligence, but very few of them were capable of understanding the : material. I don't believe that the students were unusually stupid : (or "learning-disabled") -- I believe that college chemistry is very : difficult relative to the average person's ability to understand.
Can it be because 'an average person' doesn't want to understand chemistry?
: >It's the same as: not anyone can be an Olympic champion or even the best : >high-school athlete, but any healthy person can run 100 meters.
: Only if you define anyone who can't do it as "unhealthy", or if : you don't care how fast they "run" it. ;)
What I meant was 'I don't care how fast they "run" it'. Actually, my point was: anybody can understand first-year college math and science classes, even though for some people it would be so big an effort that it's probably not worth it.
-- --Vera Izrailit-------izrai...@kruuna.helsinki.fi-- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,, o Kill files are for weenies! '''''''''' . vvvvvvvvvvvv ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ,, ) ,''''''''''''''''' / /''+,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ' < ) < ) ''' '''
In a previous article, wc...@pitt.edu (William C Tom) wrote:
>Although almost all college students can understand the social science >courses if they are willing to work at it, the same is just not true >for the physical sciences. A large part of the student population >is mathematically inept, and will not be able to "understand" many >physical-science concepts no matter how hard it studies. In my >experience, the ones who do well in the hard sciences often do >less book work. The "grunts" may memorize the formulas and proofs >to pass exams, but they never have the insight into their subjects.
You are correct that a large part of the student population is mathematically inept, but a lot of that has to do with the quality of mathematics teaching at the pre-college level. More to the point, though, it is easier to get through an undergraduate arts class, not because the subject requires less intelligence intrinsically, but because memorization of facts (brute effort) will take you further than in sciences or engineering where you have to solve problems. Moreover, if you are capable of writing a coherent paper -- something a large no. of science and engineering students are incapable of -- you are almost certain to do well at the undergraduate level where you are not required to analyze the material in depth.
Please try to contain this thread to the newsgroups where it is applicable, which have been determined to be soc.culture.usa and misc.education.
The soc.women and soc.men people have complained. The misc.jobs people have complained. I continue to complain on the behalf of the rec.puzzles people. It is, admittedly, our thread, but it has strayed far from the original subject, and we, at least I, don't want it any more. Please, please, please note the various groups to which this is crossposted and try to fix it. It is getting better, thank you very much.
In article <2nedb2$...@klaava.Helsinki.FI> izrai...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Vera Izrailit) writes: #Boucher David (bouc...@server.uwindsor.ca) wrote:
# #: Well, given current trends in grade inflation that might be true. When #: I taught freshman chemistry I was told flat-out that I could not flunk #: more than a certain percentage of the class no matter how poorly they #: learned. # #Can you at least give them an 'incomplete'?
Nope.
#: I would estimate that my students were of at least average #: intelligence, but very few of them were capable of understanding the #: material. I don't believe that the students were unusually stupid #: (or "learning-disabled") -- I believe that college chemistry is very #: difficult relative to the average person's ability to understand. # #Can it be because 'an average person' doesn't want to understand chemistry?
If they don't want to understand chemistry, they shouldn't choose a major for which it is required that they take chemistry. But I don't think that's the reason, because even if they were not interested in chemistry one would expect that they'd still try to learn as much as they were capable of learning in order to keep up their GPA. I had to take a lot of subjects that didn't particularly interest me, but I still managed to do better than average in most of them.
#: >It's the same as: not anyone can be an Olympic champion or even the best #: >high-school athlete, but any healthy person can run 100 meters. # #: Only if you define anyone who can't do it as "unhealthy", or if #: you don't care how fast they "run" it. ;) # #What I meant was 'I don't care how fast they "run" it'. Actually, my point #was: anybody can understand first-year college math and science classes, #even though for some people it would be so big an effort that it's probably #not worth it.
That may be true, but I doubt it -- I've seen many people try very hard to do it and still not succeed.
- db
-- ****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ****** ****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ****** ****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ****** *************************************************************************
In article <1994Mar31.181303.1@pomona> spu...@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
#Please try to contain this thread to the newsgroups where it is applicable, #which have been determined to be soc.culture.usa and misc.education. # #The soc.women and soc.men people have complained. #The misc.jobs people have complained. #I continue to complain on the behalf of the rec.puzzles people. It is, #admittedly, our thread, but it has strayed far from the original subject, and #we, at least I, don't want it any more. Please, please, please [...]
Do you suppose that the people who complained took a poll first to ascertain that their opinion was representative of the general opinion in the newsgroup? Did you? Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to a) skip the thread and not read it or b) get a kill file so it doesn't show up in your newsreader at all?
- db
-- ****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ****** ****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ****** ****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ****** *************************************************************************
In article <2ned00$...@klaava.Helsinki.FI> izrai...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Vera Izrailit) writes: >CREATED SHIVA (fchap...@sun1.iusb.indiana.edu) wrote: >: Well, I have always considered mathematical ability to be a measure of >: intelligence.
>I've known a lot of people who were (in my opinion and in opinion of everyone >around) very intelligent, but with a poor mathematical ability. On the other >hand, I don't know if they *really* had poor math ability, or if they just >disliked math.
Although I can't say that everybody with mathematical ability are geniuses, I have always thought that all people with poor math ability are complete idiots.
In article <31MAR94.20453...@vax.clarku.edu> jpot...@vax.clarku.edu (John F. Potter) writes:
>You are correct that a large part of the student population is mathematically >inept, but a lot of that has to do with the quality of mathematics teaching at >the pre-college level.
Which is a result, in part, of elementary teachers who don't know math. I knew many El Ed teachers as an undergrad and you would be shocked at the number who said "Me and math don't get along." That, to me, is scary. How can we expect teachers to teach our kids subjects that they themselves don't like. IMO, we really need to emphasize basics with younger folks (3 R's type stuff). From they basics, you can build. How can you teach a student about poetry if they can't read?
>In article <31MAR94.20453...@vax.clarku.edu> jpot...@vax.clarku.edu (John F. Potter) writes:
>>You are correct that a large part of the student population is mathematically >>inept, but a lot of that has to do with the quality of mathematics teaching at >>the pre-college level.
>Which is a result, in part, of elementary teachers who don't know math. >I knew many El Ed teachers as an undergrad and you would be shocked at the >number who said "Me and math don't get along." That, to me, is scary. >How can we expect teachers to teach our kids subjects that they themselves >don't like. IMO, we really need to emphasize basics with younger >folks (3 R's type stuff). From they basics, you can build. How can >you teach a student about poetry if they can't read?
>paul
Not only that, but how do we expect someone who is downright scared of math to teach students _not_ to be afraid of it?
In article <714_9404020...@logo.ka.sub.org> fchap...@sun1.iusb.indiana.edu (fchap...@sun1.iusb.indiana.edu) writes:
> Well, I have always considered mathematical ability to be a measure of >intelligence. > I could add to this but I am going to wait and deal with responses to the >above. :D
I have always thought that an ability to juggle flaming torches and a working knowledge of Shakespeare is an excellent measure of intelligence.
Coincidently.....
Alan ---- EFI agrees with me 100% on matters of fact. The above aren't even close.
Well, I have always considered mathematical ability to be a measure of intelligence. I could add to this but I am going to wait and deal with responses to the above. :D
