In article <bd0n74d303ut3j65o8drchpdq2nc4jrbt9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>On Jul 13, 7:57pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >My legislature demands that I teach this, failure to do so will
result in my
>>> >termination.
>>> Herman doesn't think that legislatures should have the right to decide
>>> curriculum - only subject matter academicians.
>>And he is correct. The idea that the legislature, who knows nothing
>>abouth math, chemistry, physics, literature, sociology, etc. should
>>decide course content is absurd.... The inmates are running the
>>asylum.
>Democracy - the worst form of government - except for all the rest.
Thousands of laws people have spoken,
A handful the Creator sent.
The former are frequently broken,
The latter can't even be bent.
If our representatives legislate in contradiction to
the laws of nature, which laws will be observed?
Congress can legislate a bound of 3 dollars a gallon
for gasoline, but this will not change the price of
oil, and nobody will get gasoline. Congress can
legislate that everyone will get good health care,
and that will mean that some bureaucrat will decide
who gets what; the resources are not there. I have
been in various medical facilities now for the last
5 weeks, and these are considered good facilities,
but today I had to wait 15 minutes for a nurse to
respond; an assistant would have been adequate.
If everyone had the medical attention Ted Kennedy
had, assuming it could be done, it would cost
several times the GDP.
The inmates are running the asylum. They assume
that everyone can learn a good amount at the same
rate in homogeneous cl*****, and that the bright
and gifted can learn it "deeper". In mathematics,
this cannot be done except by concentrating on
trivia. The mathematical equivalent of writing
paragraphs is the formulation of word problems;
the economists I worked with, even those with
not too great a mathematical background, could
do this, even including calculus. It is more
im****tant that the engineer formulates the
problem correctly than that he is able to solve
it in closed form.
>>> Other countries that outperform us in science and math tests are also
>>> noted for being envious of American initiative and creativity. It
>>> could very well be that there is a tradeoff between rigor and
>>> creativity for all but the most intelligent (and maybe even them).
>>However, it is precisely the "most intelligent" who are responsible
>>for the creativity.
>That is questionable.
It is, because many have had their ability to use
their intelligence, or even their intelligence,
weakened by the (expletive deleted) schools.
>In any event, in other countries, the most intelligent don't have so
>much creativity.
Many are converted to religion and other forms of
philosophy. Zen does not prove theorems.
>>We have the 3rd largest population in the world. And the most of any
>>*developed* country. (China & India are getting there. I expect
>>China to overtake the U.S. in science and technology during this
century).
>They may have a larger economy, but we will likely still be the
>innovators, because China does not reward innovation, and indeed often
>punishes it.
>>It is not surprising that we would have more creative people than most
>>other countries.
>China has more "most intelligent" people than we do, by a factor of 4,
>unless you assume that their population has a significantly different
>bell curve. So if creativity is just another word for high
>intelligence, they would have more creative people. But they don't.
Many of their best come to the US and other western countries.
Japan, which used to be highly creative, has lost it.
Israel, a small country, is highly creative.
>>Perhaps what we need to do (this is VERY politically incorrect)
>>is to separate those who can from those who can not very early on
>>in school.
>The United States is not that sort of country. If that is what we
>"need" to do, we will find a different way, or choose a different
>goal, because to do as you suggest would fundamentally violate our
>cultural identity.
Nonsense. It was the policy in the 19th century, and lasted
mainly to WWII.
>>Provide training (in the sense under discussion) for those
>>who can't, and provide education (in the sense under discussion) for
>>those who can.
There were the three tier high school programs when I went.
College preparative, shop, and "general". Many who could
have taken the college preparative program did not because
they did not think they could get into college or afford it;
these were the GIs who raised standards after WWII in the
colleges.
This program was put in under democracy.
>Many who "can" don't *want*. And many of their parents don't "want",
>either.
This can be a problem. What do you propose to do about
it? Is depriving those who can and want an answer?
>>It is my understanding that at least some countries already
>>do this (e.g. Germany).
>And Germany doesn't have nearly the innovation levels that we do. They
>have some superb craftsmen, though, because they value that sort of
>thing.
Because a large number of top Germans came to the US.
Also Chinese; there are five Zhang's in our department.
Before WWII, Germany was number 1 in science, with France
and England behind, and the US possibly ahead of those.
This with the US doctoral program starting in 1876.
>>One might argue that this will lead to a 2-tiered
>>society, but I would argue that this is what we already have.
>Not legally.
>>The widening income gap in this country is driven by (IMO) the gap in
education
>>between the poor and the economically well-to-do. The poor are poor
>>precisely because they have below average intelligence and hence get
"training" instead
>>of "education".
>George Bush was economically well off. What's your explanation for
>him?
What is the problem? I have seen his IQ estimated at 128.
>Those Asian immigrants who come over tend to arrive fairly poor. What
>is your explanation for their success?
They believe in education, in learning more and better.
This is in contrast to many Americans, who at most believe
in grades.
>Clearly socioeconomics does provide benefits and handicaps. It does
>in Germany and in that ultimate meritocracy Singa****e. But the pride
>of our system is our social mobility. Bill Clinton, whatever you
>think of his politics, went from broken family poverty to the highest
>office in the land. Obama likewise started rather low on the
>socioeconomic totem pole.
I was not from a broken family, but from poverty. I was
taught to read very early, but taught little more; I
believe arithmetic. I did learn in the schools, but not
from the teachers. It was not until just before I got to
high school that I learned anything about matheamtics, and
it was the first principle of algebra; this is all I needed
to take off. How many years earlier could I have done that?
Before, I was mainly reading biography, history, and
geography; the science section available to grade school
students was of poor quality.
>It's a little harder to find such examples in the sciences, but one of
>the 2006 Physics Nobelists was the son of a traveling salesman. Robert
Grubbs, one of the 2005 Chemistry Nobelist, grew up in rural Kentucky.
My father became unemployed when I was 3, and I was
12 when my parents progressed to opening a mom-and-pop
delicatessen, and later they sold it and opened a
grocery. My father must have been a genius, but had
no education. We need to search out and encourage these,
not bury them in a heterogeneous class.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
|
