Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:29:33 GMT
>>I believe you are correct, but I think the syndrome goes far deeper than you >>have said. Basically, the US educational system has evolved a mthodology in >>which theory is quite simply not taught at all. What passes for >>"theoretical discussion" in an American classroom is really and extended >>introduction to the subject matter. The subject matter itself is embodied >>in a series of examples, that illustrate the real meat of what is being >>taught.
> OT Free associating:
> Conversations with Vadim and others from his part of the world
> have convinced me that the point at which the average Russian
> student achieves US-graduate-student level mathematical
> education is approximately the third grade.
> US schools are firmly committed to single-streaming everyone.
> (This is a clear reflection of otherwise-admirable US social
> values of equality of opportunity.) This is done to an extreme:
> the *most* gifted students in a district will literally be put
> in the same class with moderately retarded students.
It's actually worse than that, and it's going to get much much worse. In order to keep their jobs under No Child Left Behind, educators will have to focus all their attention on the retardates leaving the average and gifted kids to fend for themselves.
The current political environment refuses to acknowledge that some students simply lack sufficient intelligence to excel no matter the expense. The US is squandering its future: the gifted students will drive all future progress and growth.
> My seven year old son is constantly telling me how
> school is "BO RING"; exactly my experience with public
> school, and apparently I went to unusually good
> public schools.
> I was in my forties before I figured out the relationship
> between mathematics and computer science. Up until
> my late thirties they seemed only vaguely related.
> I can put a modest amount of the blame for this on
> my university, however; they pushed calculus and
> more calculus at me, which I have never found an
> application for, and ignored logic, statistics, set
> theory, and most of abstract algebra. I suppose this
> in part derives from the perception of computer
> science as being closely related to other engineering
> fields where I believe calculus is more relevant.
> Barbie says "math is hard."
Ken says: "Why should I learn all this crap when I am never going to use it?" Received on Thu Mar 01 2007 - 19:29:33 CET