Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Interesting point Stephen. By learning classics, I guess the 19th century Brits picked up on both how an earlier empire had worked, and the basic skills needed to learn other languages.
I wonder if that actually worked better than if they'd studied Urdu with Imperial Administration or similar.
-
I think of rote learning as writing stuff out on a piece of paper and rereading it until you remember it.
As opposed to performing a task with a tutor or manual until the latter becomes unnecessary - that isn't rote learning as far as I'm concerned - it's learning by doing.
-
the pilot has to have learned their position and use by rote
I can't fly, but I certainly didn't learn to work a car, boat or computer by rote. I learnt by doing and being shown and hence picking up things like using Win-M to mimimise all windows, or how to use the kicking strap to flatten the sail when closehauled.
-
Meaning that it's of less relevance how and what you do at undergrad degree level because postgrad entry is dependent on a standardised test?
Which sort of raises the question - why do an undergrad degree at all (I presume you have to)?
I'm of the view that 3 years uni followed by on-the-job training is the appropriate background for most people. (Unfortunately the option for bright 7th formers to go straight into on-the-job training has been largely lost, which is a pity. I'd rather have done that and I'm convinced I could have learnt my "trade" of IT quicker and better that way).
-
(three posts in a row, sorry)
With all respect to my American friends, I don't think you can hold the US up as a shining example of academic excellence. Their first degrees are, I understand, not that far ahead of NZ 7th form. Most professionals are expected to have a postgrad degree.
(To be a solicitor in England, you do a 3 year LLB and a 1 year practice course. In the US, it's a 4 year undergrad degree (in any subject) and 3 years at law school)
Of course, this doesn't hold the US back at all. I was trying to come up with the name of a great American-born physicist on a par with Rutherford just now, and I can't really think of one. Lawrence maybe, or Feynman. All the others (Fermi, von Neumann, etc) were emigres. They still manage to dominate the field.
-
Well we had our 12 year old daughter come home from school laughing that they had been taught that man has never landed on the moon. If that isn’t seeing through BS I don't know what is.
They do Baudrillard at 12 in NZ schools? Wow. I take it all back.
-
Absolutely Tom.
As you might notice from some of my posts, I'm a bit of a history geek. A good 50% of my reading is history books, and I like to think I've got a bit of knowledge on the subject.
I hated it at school. My learning style is basically to read, ask questions, understand (plus I also have my unique patent learning method where I build an incomplete model of the subject area and improve it by stepwise refinement). Plus, I like to see a purpose for any activity.
School history was mostly copying down the teachers notes from the board and then writing them up neatly with pictures. Marks were awarded for neatness and pictures. Consequently, I dropped it like a gun as soon as we were allowed to.
Now if you are the sort of person that thrives on that sort of thing, then I guess that might have motivated you to study history, and you might have moved on to pick up some useful skills (besides drawing and writing neatly).
It didn't help that in the early years of school you were taught the most remote and dull parts of history. Doing something more recent (particularly involving tanks and explosions) would also have helped engage the 12-year old mind.
I guess my point is that all children are different and education should align to different interests and learning styles. I know that teachers are actually taught about different types of learner, but wonder how much of this actually gets carried into the classroom. Because it's expensive. And it's a whole lot easier to concentrate on the kids it works for (who might become Kevin's elite students) and the big kids (who can be sent off to play rugby all day) and leave the lumpenproles to be "occupied" until it's time for them to leave school.
-
Jeremy, there are undoubtedly a few jobs like cleaning, flipping burgers, etc. that will always be at the bottom of the skill/pay scale.
But as economies upskill, those jobs reduce in number (and are often done as interim work by people on their way to better things - a friend of mine cleans offices while she does her masters). A lot of other low paid jobs just go. We stop competing in low-wage, labour-intensive work and using people for jobs that can be done by machines.
(Example: most NZ roadworks will have someone at each end controlling traffic. Elsewhere, they set up a portable traffic light to do the job. That isn't destroying jobs, it's using a machine to do crappy, boring work which doesn't justify a person).
-
I think if I might summarise your argument, Kevin, it is that NZ education at all levels is insufficiently rigorous and we aren't producing enough elite graduates in scientific subjects.
This may be the case, but I don't believe it's a major problem for our economy or society.
It *is* a problem that many kids aren't getting much out of their education and are growing up disillusioned and unable to live fulfilling lives. These people aren't PhD candidates, but those for whom a better education would make the difference between the dole and a decent job. That's what the system should be concentrating on; In some areas, like the introduction of standard-based exams, it is. But there's a long way to go, especially in the structure, funding and attitude of schools.
-
Kevin is a real academic - either that or somebody is impersonating some poor Auckland researcher.
His official Auckland uni page has his signature English style though. I guess he must be seriously clever to progress so far with grammar and spelling like that.