The money quote. =^_^=Quote:
Originally posted by indivision
You always hear kids saying "I will never use this knowledge" and you always hear adults saying "I wish I would have paid better attention in such and such class."
The money quote. =^_^=Quote:
Originally posted by indivision
You always hear kids saying "I will never use this knowledge" and you always hear adults saying "I wish I would have paid better attention in such and such class."
Indeed.
If I'm not mistaken, learning any material only serves to further develop your brain's neural pathways and the more pathways you have, the more you can absorb and the quicker you can access the information you have retained.
There is no such thing as wasted learning. Learn anything you can, whether it be a new language, a new skill or the lyrics to any Molly Hatchet song of you choice.
As well as delaying the onset of any Altzheimer's symptoms (people who know two languages have been shown to have a far lesser rate of the disease than those who know only one), it all adds up to making a smarter, better you.
And that in turn will hopefully lead you as an individual away from the path that has 'welfare recipient' as the last stop on the line.
You should be hirribly upset if your children learn the same things you did when you were their age".Quote:
Because that's how the world works? We are constantly learning new things, making new discoveries, uncovering past mistakes. You should be horribly upset if your children learn the same things you did when you were their age
Hm.. no. Were you taught how to add, subtract, divide, and multiply? I bet so. Now, in my generation, is the process any different? NO! you know why? Because it is a fact, it is a truth. It is a certainty. Therefore, I do not object to it for the same reason as Health. Infact I do not object to it at all.
So, if learning how to learn, why waste the opportunity to learn something useful? Answer me that. If the purpose of education is to basically place students in class rooms to program their own brains to learn, why not learn something useful, something that can be applied.Quote:
It is not what you learn. What you are learning now, far above the actual content, is part of the process of teaching you how to learn.
This is a lot of logical hoop-jumping just to get out of writing a paper on Hamlet.
Kids today, selfish spoiled brats.
Here's my advice:
Life is full of things you don't want to do, but have to. Get used to it.
It is useful in an indirect way. Understanding a subject from many perspectives (historical, foundation, vocabulary, etc.) gives you the confidence to apply it in basic ways. Right now, you have confidence anyway just because of your age. As you get older and you make stupid mistakes and say silly things and get embarrassed, you will learn to not be so over-confident about things. You will rely more on what you really know to give you confidence.Quote:
Originally posted by mike6888
So, if learning how to learn, why waste the opportunity to learn something useful? Answer me that. If the purpose of education is to basically place students in class rooms to program their own brains to learn, why not learn something useful, something that can be applied.
Also, you will do yourself a service to learn that teachers are not always good at what they do. Just because one teacher isn't able to make a good case for why something is important doesn't mean that it is not. You should always take the responsibility of understanding something upon yourself.
Of all things to know well, I would think the language you use should be one of the top 10. I wish I would have paid closer attention to many things when all I thought was important at the time was peeling out in my muscle car as I left the school parking lot. The people responding to you here are trying to do you a favor. It's amazing what a few years can do to your perspective. Trust us that the kids who give a crap about gerunds are the ones that are landing good jobs and having happy, interesting lives.
I wish I had better English skills and knowledge. If had known then what I know now...
Actually I blame alot of it on MS Word. That program is amazing as far as covering my ass, but it also has made me lazy and sloppy as hell without it.
I would agree that the kids learning gerunds are the one's living happily. But that's under the status quo. They are learning gerunds because they are tested on them. The skill of knowing about gerunds isn't what makes them successful. It is their test scores, and gpa. It is because they did well in school. But I am advocating a policy change. Your employer could care less if you KNOW GERUNDS. S/he simply looks at GPA, diploma, etc. If gerunds were stricken from the whole system, life could carry on just the same, except we could test over something different. Something practical. Honestly, who here actually believes learning something USELESS is better than learning something practical or usable. Don't give me any "We learn to teach our brain to learn" mumbo jumbo. I have already covered that when i give you a choice. Either way, you learn something.
Let's have a poll:
1) Learning gerunds is more beneficial then learning about how our government works.
2) Learning about our government is more important then gerunds.
Let's answer honestly.
My vote is #2
Hey mike6888,
At the risk of sounding ignorant hehe
What exactly are gerunds?????????
Also, to strengthen the argument that people learn if they're interested, it's possible to make grammar interesting to a math/computer guy like myself. A couple of years ago I wanted to make an AI chatbot, so I studied and took notes on an advanced English book, which greatly improved my English. I learnt useful information that I never would have learnt in school since we were busy reading about some writer from thousands of years ago.
That's why I think Mike's idea of "if you have to learn something, learn something useful" works, since not only am I exersizing my brain, but learning something that I'll use in real life.
I think your logic with this argument takes many liberties. Employers, in actuality, care VERY LITTLE what your test scores are and whether you just went through the hoops for the degree. What they DO care about is whether or not you're the type of person who cares about what you do and are one who is thorough in understanding. The kids who bother to learn the details are successful later because they take it upon themselves to know everything about a subject and aren't satisfied with just knowing enough to use it in every-day circumstances. I want good things for you Mike6888 and hopefully you will attain them, with or without gerunds. But, since you brought it up, it's the best advice I can give that you think about your attitude about this and try to look at the whole picture. But, if you just want to peel out in the parking lot, go right ahead! :)Quote:
Originally posted by mike6888
I would agree that the kids learning gerunds are the one's living happily. But that's under the status quo. They are learning gerunds because they are tested on them. The skill of knowing about gerunds isn't what makes them successful. It is their test scores, and gpa. It is because they did well in school. But I am advocating a policy change. Your employer could care less if you KNOW GERUNDS. S/he simply looks at GPA, diploma, etc. If gerunds were stricken from the whole system, life could carry on just the same, except we could test over something different. Something practical. Honestly, who here actually believes learning something USELESS is better than learning something practical or usable. Don't give me any "We learn to teach our brain to learn" mumbo jumbo. I have already covered that when i give you a choice. Either way, you learn something.
Let's have a poll:
1) Learning gerunds is more beneficial then learning about how our government works.
2) Learning about our government is more important then gerunds.
Let's answer honestly.
My vote is #2
It's true that it's easier to learn something that you understand a use for which is why I added that you shouldn't rely on teachers to make something's use apparent to you. Assume always that it's better to know. You never know how you might end up using some bit of knowledge that seems useless at the time. You never know how it might become useful in an unexpected way; the missing piece of a larger puzzle.Quote:
Originally posted by jtnw
That's why I think Mike's idea of "if you have to learn something, learn something useful" works, since not only am I exersizing my brain, but learning something that I'll use in real life.
I was more referring to the idea of learning useful information that I'd use instead of rubbish that I might use. In my school, we spend maybe a month total of learning grammar through out the 4 years of high school. I'd rather see a class that spent some more time on that.Quote:
Originally posted by indivision
It's true that it's easier to learn something that you understand a use for which is why I added that you shouldn't rely on teachers to make something's use apparent to you. Assume always that it's better to know. You never know how you might end up using some bit of knowledge that seems useless at the time. You never know how it might become useful in an unexpected way; the missing piece of a larger puzzle.
I definitely agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in education. But, you shouldn't rely on the system to mold your attitude about learning or whether or not you are interested (not saying that is your case but in general). If they don't cover it enough, learn about it on your own.Quote:
Originally posted by jtnw
I was more referring to the idea of learning useful information that I'd use instead of rubbish that I might use. In my school, we spend maybe a month total of learning grammar through out the 4 years of high school. I'd rather see a class that spent some more time on that.
All i have to say is, "If it weren't for my horse, i wouldn't have spent that year in college".
I've been wanting to add that for a long time to this thread.
30 years of flipping burgers No toothless wife to call my own
and paying rent in a tenament slum all because I don't know what
a gerund is.
What, you never heard of new math? Of course not, to you it's just math. You might be surprised at how different what they teach now is from what they taught a few decades ago.Quote:
Originally posted by mike6888
Hm.. no. Were you taught how to add, subtract, divide, and multiply? I bet so. Now, in my generation, is the process any different? NO! you know why? Because it is a fact, it is a truth. It is a certainty. Therefore, I do not object to it for the same reason as Health. Infact I do not object to it at all.
And I fail to really even see why you are arguing this, as I'm fairly certain that the teaching and application of gerunds has been fairly consistent for generations; shouldn't that then be taught, as it isn't one of those annoying, evolving 'facts'?
Your idea of teaching only what the students are interested in has several flaws. What would you want a teacher to present to a class consisting of a musician, a computer programmer, a jock and a painter? What method of presenting the material would appeal to the interest of each and every individual in the class?
Interest in a subject has no bearing on that subject's utility later in life. You say early on in this thread that certain subjects are only useful in very specific and rare occupations. That is certainly true, to a point, and a very good case for not doing the very thing you are suggesting. A person who spends a semester learning the basics of calculus may never end up using it in their working lives, yet I'm fairly certain that the chances are much higher that someone who spends their entire education studying, say, surfing (if that is what interests them) will never be able to support themselves with that knowledge.
You are also taking quite a utilitarian interpretation of education, that it only exists as a method of preparing you for a career. Life is so much more than an office, and the skills you learn in school (like how to get something done without being interested in it, or how to carry on a conversation that does not fascinate you - all you married men know what I mean) pay off a lot more than being able to conjugate verbs. Everyone had classes they hated, everyone had subjects they just never 'got', and yet for all the trouble they caused me in my day, I'm better off for having had them.
Many of the people here are speaking on having two levels of experience with this - as the student, and as the person looking back on their education. You have yet to look back with perfect 20/20 vision. I'm not trying to say that your opinions are invalid or we just know more than you, but you should acknowledge that our opinions have at least a bit more behind them than your could at this point.
We gain nothing by trying to 'trick' you into thinking one way or another about your own education. You have much to gain (temporarily, at least) by convincing yourself that you don't need to work. Benefit from our experience and don't cheat yourself.
Well, to start off, I'm disappointed by the fact that no one is taking the poll. I honestly want people to do this (even though I already know what the true and honest outcome would be).
I admire your sincerity very much, rather than threatning me that I'm going to have a toothless wife, and live in a trailor park.Quote:
but you should acknowledge that our opinions have at least a bit more behind them than your could at this point.
To clarify a simple matter to all those out there. I currently have a 4.0 gpa in my sophomore year. I am in every advanced class possible. So, don't automatically judge my questions of the current system and practices and ASSUME that I'm a failure in school. I acknowledge the fact that in the real world I need to do well in school. But I also acknowledge (as mentioned before) that doing well in school is the number 1 concern. Now, whether or not you took Advanced English or Government, an F is an F and an A is an A. A bad grade in either is bad for you, and probably looked down by an employer. It's not neccessarily the classes you took, but the grade that matters. I've said before that I'm WILLING to jump through the loops of life, but I'm not in any way, shape, or form pleased with it. I know Life isn't fair, but it could be if people just taught logically, relevant, and practically. How hard would that be? If only it was done, almost all the problem kids have with school would vanish!
With that said, and no one has attempted to answer against this, why learn something that serves no purpose when there are more appropriate and practical things yet to be taught.
I'd truly appreciate comments on this. And please, I beg you to take the poll. So far it is 1) 0 and 2) 1
Let's see the general consensus
Well once again you didn't read, or didn't understand my point. Read this line right here:Quote:
And I fail to really even see why you are arguing this, as I'm fairly certain that the teaching and application of gerunds has been fairly consistent for generations; shouldn't that then be taught, as it isn't one of those annoying, evolving 'facts'?
This means that I do not object to adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing BECAUSE it changes every decade. This is because it DOES NOT change every decade.Quote:
Therefore, I do not object to it for the same reason as Health.
I continue:
Now, I assume you were ASSUMING that I agreed with these basic four functions because they were truths. I assume this because of this line:Quote:
I do not object to it at all.
I guess I should have clarified my reason for not objecting to basic math being mandatory. I do not object to it NOT BECAUSE IT IS A TRUTH, but because it is practical. So, under my logic, I still have fair grounds to object to gerunds. Your argument was based on a false preface.Quote:
I'm fairly certain that the teaching and application of gerunds has been fairly consistent for generations; shouldn't that then be taught, as it isn't one of those annoying, evolving 'facts'?
If you put half as much effort into learning about gerunds as you did this thread, you'd have mastered them by now.
Jesus I sound like my Mom.
Not quite - I understand that you are arguing two different ideas: that teaching information that is constantly being revised is a waste of time, and that all information taught should be based on its relevancy either to the individuals interests or potential use in later life.Quote:
Originally posted by mike6888
Well once again you didn't read, or didn't understand my point...
...Your argument was based on a false preface.
Correct?
In that vein, the learning of gerunds and basic English is neither constantly revised nor without its uses later in life (albeit with a caveat that it may not be the most important thing). The argument you were making against health seems to be in direct contradiction to your position on English (a subject that is taught in flux and therefore relevant to life today is bad, and so is a subject that has remained constant and therefore does not reflect today's realities).
You are taught health for one reason: to give you the basics of how to lead a healthy life. The specifics of how you do this are constantly being updated, but that is exactly what makes it useful. Imagine a health class taught before the discovery of anti-biotics compared to one of today; the intent is the same, but what they actually tell you changes as progress is made.
Ditto with math. Math is the use of numbers to perform calculations. Prior to the 'new math' following the launch of Sputnik, students were simply required to memorize the times-table, certain formulas, etc. 'New math' focused on the concepts of math, teaching the underlying ideas of calculations and how they relate to each other. The end result is the same, but what you actually learn in class is different.
If you want to argue practicality, then I will be the first to agree that it is suspect in many things that are taught (although I will not say lacking). But, if you are trying to say that teaching revised and updated material is somehow a sign of inconsistency in the subject, or a reason why that should not be taught to begin with, I cannot agree.
*edit*
Perhaps this can help you figure this stuff out - some really nice insights. Make sure to read the 'Corruption' section...
Hehe. Well, you are certainly making a case as to why our school system is failing when you can have a 4.0, lack common sense and be outrageously over-confident, all at the same time.
Again, employers can give a rip what letter grades you have. I've hired people myself and conducted interviews, etc for companies, as well as being interviewed many times. Letter grades have never been an issue while completeness of knowledge often has.
It IS practical to know what gerunds are. You already know what they are in an abstract way if you speak proper english. Knowing the word and what it means is simply to understand the structure and vocabulary associated with it in a more concrete way. If you ever plan to write for any reason, it will be PRACTICALLY useful for you to know the correct structure of the language you are writing so that you can properly edit yourself. How can you have a 4.0 and not grasp that simple concept?
lol. seriously. is there a rebel hormone or what? i wasn't any different for sure.Quote:
If you put half as much effort into learning about gerunds as you did this thread, you'd have mastered them by now.