Sunday, March 23, 2008

How Kids are dis-educated

This blogger teaches English and Japan, and offers some scathing comment on the bland politicised rubbish and disrespect of knowledge that goes on in Education schools in the US (and elsewhere), and the non-education of kids as a result. the satire below is from his blog.
Read his full dissection of Ed-schools:
The History of Math Teaching since 1950:
1. Teaching Math In 1950 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
2. Teaching Math In 1960 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990 A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)
6. Teaching Math In 2005 Un hachero vende una carretada de madera para $100. El costo de la producciones es $80.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 10:00 PM

1 comment:

Marcus said...

I read the entire "How Kids are dis-educated" article by the Promethean Antagonist (not sure what that pseudonym means, if anything, but never mind). In general I liked what he said. His written English may not have been perfect (better than Bueche's but not as good as Sorman's), but he did offer an excuse in his introductory comments - that he didn't have time to fully proof-read his article. That I can understand: you would be hard-pressed to find a spelling mistake or a grammatical error, or even a typo, in my own comments - but I proof-read them between three and ten times, depending upon the importance and formality of the communication. (This particular comment isn't very formal: I will probably proof-read it only three or four times, so there may be one or two style and/or grammatical errors.)

Anyway, ignoring the few errors in prose that I noticed, his article was very much in accordance with my point of view of the American education system. You and I, Jules, were very lucky to have a set of reasonably decent teachers when we were at school. Sure, some were more adept than others in getting the point across, but in general they tried their best to teach us the facts, and not the bullsh*t taught in many American schools referred to by the Promethean Antagonist in his article...

As I have said before: even though I went to a fairly prestigious British university, I have used not one thing I learnt there (academically) during my entire career – all the basic principles I needed I had already learned in high school.

As a summary, I still regard the British school education system as one of the best in the world – and the American one as one of the worst – but universities the world over are in general useful only to obtain a diploma (making finding a job much easier), to learn how to learn (in this I may disagree with the P.A. to some extent, although I suspect we may be referring to different concepts) and to educate one in social integration (especially in campus universities); the exceptions being in the university courses of law and medicine, where one normally acquires vital knowledge for one’s future career, which is why they are normally a lot longer than other courses…

Cheers, Marcus