Seeking straight A's, parents push for pills

In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...

................

How do you know that?


One would have to be deaf and dumb not to know that.

I have asked you a good question and you owe me an apology. You might
possibly be right about the college prep work. However, one would have to
be able to compare college prep work before WWII and now. How have you done
that?

I was in high school before WWII, and took part of that
program; the rest I studied myself. Only the honors
programs match any of it, and not always then. The
theorem-proof geometry course was mandatory, as was
grammar-based foreign language. There was no attempt
to reduce any of the college preparatory program to
what the "average" student could do.

The one year of algebra required (more was usually taken)
then was more than the equal of two now.

The physics and chemistry courses were stronger, but
that did not then, and does not now, have that much
relevance. Literature had more of an "ancient" flavor,
and reading Shakespeare was expected of all.


--
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
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

In article ,
nimue wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article ,
nimue wrote:
Raving Beauty wrote:
nimue wrote:
toto wrote:
I am a
teacher and I can tell you that kids who get As usually do so
because they love learning.

Bull****.

Getting straight A's necessitates one PLAY THE GAME

What game? Doing all your homework?

Why? The only legitimate purpose for homework is to
help learn the material. If it is not needed for
that, it should not be assigned.

That's why it is assigned. It's called "spiraling" nowadays. Homework can
also be fun, believe it or not.

The spiral method is an utter waste of time. A good
student can probably skip the first five or more steps
on day one, and should go on.

Writing all your essays?

If one or two satisfactory essays are written, what
is the purpose of the rest?

What do students need to grow as writers and critical thinkers? Practice.
Lots of practice.

Essays on what? Things which the English teacher thinks
are relevant? Things which the English teacher assigns
because the English teacher cannot understand the subject
about which the student is interested, and which may well
be at a higher level?

Getting an A
average on tests and quizzes?

Do you not take into account improving during the term?
The first time I taught a class, a student got a good
A on the final, much better than earlier. I learned
then that it is the end result which should count.

Here's a secret -- at times I agree with you. If a kid makes a phenomenal
improvement, I will give that kid the higher grade. If a kid was just
cutting the beginning of the term, or goofing off, I won't.

Completing all your projects?

Unless there is a VERY good reason for projects, they
should be abolished.

God no! They are FUN. This is one of the things the kids enjoy most.
Projects give kids the opportunity to work together and to use all the
multiple intelligences.

No, they are what YOU think are fun. And they detract
from learning, especially by good students. It is always
a few students who do all the thinking.

Showing up to
class every day?

Who cares? What matters is what they learn, and
even more important, what they understand.

Kids learn from class discussion. I can just tell them what a poem means,
or they can discover what it means for themselves during class. That is
what class is for. That's why we have it. The students learn from one
another and the teacher. I have never had a student who didn't learn new
skills from other students.

Literature is entertainment plus propaganda. What a poem
means to one might be nonsense to another. This is not
what an education should be.

I am not ignorant of poetry, and can appreciate it. But I
can also see the author's trying to convince the reader by
rhetorical means, not by logical ones. Students should be
taught to watch for the proselytization, not to welcome it.

That is what you are graded on. That is not a game --
that is school.

You are part of the problem.

What problem? I want kids to learn and to enjoy learning? What solution to
this "problem" do you suggest?

Enjoy learning what? To play word games, instead of using
logical reasoning? To write what is almost all fiction in
a "convincing" manner instead of a few clear and precise
statements, which might have to be in mathematical symbols
rather than words?

I have read many students' essays in applications for
college and graduate school, and the fiction is apparent
to me.
--
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
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

In article ,
nimue wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...

If one or two satisfactory essays are written, what
is the purpose of the rest?

To improve the writing from satisfactory to excellent.

This is unlikely to happen, unless the reason for lack
of excellence is technical.

It is. Good lord, do you have any idea how high school students write?
They have very little technical skill. That is one of our biggest
challenges.

Then you do not have the gifted students. They have a
problem of writing because they understand that they
do not know how to express themselves correctly, so
they get "writer's block". There is nothing lacking
in their technical skill.

Many can express themselves. Nothing is lacking in
their technical skill.

Unless there is a VERY good reason for projects, they
should be abolished.

Learning is a very good reason.

Only in rare cases do projects help learning. I would
doubt that this would be the case in English, the subject
under discussion.

Do you know what a project is?

Too well. My children had them.

Showing up to
class every day?

Who cares? What matters is what they learn, and
even more important, what they understand.

I have to agree here. I did not always show up to class in college.
As long as I understood the material, I was fine studying at home.
If I was having difficulty, then I would attend class to help
clarify the material.

--
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
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...

................

How do you know that?


One would have to be deaf and dumb not to know that.

I have asked you a good question and you owe me an apology. You might
possibly be right about the college prep work. However, one would have to
be able to compare college prep work before WWII and now. How have you
done
that?

I was in high school before WWII, and took part of that
program; the rest I studied myself. Only the honors
programs match any of it, and not always then. The
theorem-proof geometry course was mandatory, as was
grammar-based foreign language. There was no attempt
to reduce any of the college preparatory program to
what the "average" student could do.

The one year of algebra required (more was usually taken)
then was more than the equal of two now.

The physics and chemistry courses were stronger, but
that did not then, and does not now, have that much
relevance. Literature had more of an "ancient" flavor,
and reading Shakespeare was expected of all.

You took part of the program, but not all of it before WWII. Did you take
any of the honors program today for comparison (since that was what you were
comparing)? Which parts of the pre-WWII program did you take? Were
algebra, physics and chemistry part of it?

Last I was there, it's been almost 20 years, Shakespeare was still expected
for college prep literature courses. Do you have evidence that it's no
longer the case? What's wrong with it not having an ancient flavor? Modern
literature has its place and should be taught along with Shakespeare.

In article ,
toto wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006 22:05:04 -0700, wrote:


.....................

I agree with your observation. It's hard to tell what made the
change, but it is certainly there. This seems to be especially true
in competitive private prep schools, btw. Several teachers I know
actually have students in high school who are motivated by things only
elementary school kids would have been interested in back when I went
to school and in fact only very young students were motivated by the
external sticker rewards that these kids want along with their grades
nowadays.

I truly think that it's because in most schools today, we have decided
to use external rewards for everything from behavior to learning and
the kids are thus demotivated towards any internal discipline or
internal goals. I have to say I agree with Alfie Kohn about how this
has affected our schools and our society.

And just to add -- I still have plenty of bright, motivated, engaged
students who are clearly taking the class for more than a grade. I
also have plenty of engaged, bright students who love talking about the
material and have interesting and insightful things to say, but who
don't do the work and are not getting As. I haven't found that what
grade a student receives *consistently* corresponds to their
intellectual curiosity.

Agreed, My favorite class to teach (other than preK) was honors
Geometry, but I had students of all varieties in those classes from
the young girl who came into the class after 6 weeks of a *no-teacher*
section (we had a section open that was taught by subs while the
admins fought with the central office), worked her tail off and got a
B for the class, to the sisters who would take proofs home and argue
about them and work with their cousin and then come in with different
proofs and want to know who was correct, to the boy who was brilliant
in algebra, but had problems with logic and thought he knew better
than the teacher when it came to his proofs who failed the class and
ended up taking a dumbed down geometry without proofs for graduation.
It has always been a challenge and the grades do consistently
correspond to the love of learning, imo.

Being able to create proofs requires ability, and that
can be brought out, but cannot be taught. Not being
able to recognize whether a detailed proof in geometry
is correct or not is so bad that it should be prima
facie evidence for being told to get out of mathematics.
If someone is going to work in algebra, it is still all
proofs.

All good mathematics is rigorous, in the sense that what
is known is what can be proved. Logic belongs in elementary
school, and has been successfully taught there by those
who understand it.





--
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
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

"toypup" wrote in message
...

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...

................

How do you know that?


One would have to be deaf and dumb not to know that.

I have asked you a good question and you owe me an apology. You might
possibly be right about the college prep work. However, one would have
to
be able to compare college prep work before WWII and now. How have you
done
that?

I was in high school before WWII, and took part of that
program; the rest I studied myself. Only the honors
programs match any of it, and not always then. The
theorem-proof geometry course was mandatory, as was
grammar-based foreign language. There was no attempt
to reduce any of the college preparatory program to
what the "average" student could do.

The one year of algebra required (more was usually taken)
then was more than the equal of two now.

The physics and chemistry courses were stronger, but
that did not then, and does not now, have that much
relevance. Literature had more of an "ancient" flavor,
and reading Shakespeare was expected of all.

You took part of the program, but not all of it before WWII. Did you take
any of the honors program today for comparison (since that was what you
were comparing)? Which parts of the pre-WWII program did you take? Were
algebra, physics and chemistry part of it?

Last I was there, it's been almost 20 years, Shakespeare was still
expected for college prep literature courses. Do you have evidence that
it's no longer the case? What's wrong with it not having an ancient
flavor? Modern literature has its place and should be taught along with
Shakespeare.

Honestly, to follow up on my own post, you could possibly be right, or more
than likely, you suffer from when-I-was-a
child-we-were-so-much-more-superior-to-today's-children-because syndrome.
You would really have to go back and compare your high school texts with
today's and I don't think the difficulty would be much different, but maybe
the subjects that are stressed are different or the approach might be
different. You could possibly think that what you took was so much more
difficult, because when you took them, it *was* difficult. The first time
you take a course, it is more challenging. Now, it's easy, and why are the
high school students today taking such easy courses? I've seen this
syndrome plenty.

Now, you could very well be right, but you need to rely on more than just
your memory of something, because our memories usually paint us in a more
favorable light.

BTW, I'm not sure by what you mean about physics and chemistry not having
relevance. I thought they were the most interesting courses and had plenty
of relevance.

In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
toto wrote:
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 15:41:22 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

"Linda Gore" wrote:

.....................

While I have some sympathy, the public schools are set up to train
kids the way the public wants them to be trained. People have the
freedom to refuse public education, but the public has the right to
decide what sorts of education that they will pay for (subject to
constitutional restrictions)

Do you know the history of public schools? The first
state-run "system" was set up in Massachusetts by
Horace Mann; it was set up after the model of the
Prussian schools, and one of the reasons it was set
up was to combat the Catholic schools. In fact, the
state militia was called out to close one of the
Catholic schools and force the children to go to
the "common school".

Mann did consider the school to be the place where the
"public morality" was to be instilled. Later, he was
disappointed that the public morality instilled did not
convert the people to Unitarianism.

It was not until roughly the Depression when the John
Dewey philosophy managed to gain ascendency, with the
idea that the children should be with their "peer group"
(read "age group") the entire time, and that "social
adjustment" should take place over learning. What we
have now comes mainly from that.
--
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
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

snip

Do you know what a project is?

Too well. My children had them.

All right then. What are they?

Showing up to
class every day?

Who cares? What matters is what they learn, and
even more important, what they understand.

I have to agree here. I did not always show up to class in
college. As long as I understood the material, I was fine studying
at home. If I was having difficulty, then I would attend class to
help clarify the material.

--
nimue

"As an unwavering Republican, I have quite naturally burned more books
than I have read." Betty Bowers

English is our friend. We don't have to fight it.
Oprah

toypup wrote:
"toypup" wrote in message
...

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...

................

How do you know that?


One would have to be deaf and dumb not to know that.

I have asked you a good question and you owe me an apology. You
might possibly be right about the college prep work. However, one
would have to
be able to compare college prep work before WWII and now. How
have you done
that?

I was in high school before WWII, and took part of that
program; the rest I studied myself. Only the honors
programs match any of it, and not always then. The
theorem-proof geometry course was mandatory, as was
grammar-based foreign language. There was no attempt
to reduce any of the college preparatory program to
what the "average" student could do.

The one year of algebra required (more was usually taken)
then was more than the equal of two now.

The physics and chemistry courses were stronger, but
that did not then, and does not now, have that much
relevance. Literature had more of an "ancient" flavor,
and reading Shakespeare was expected of all.

You took part of the program, but not all of it before WWII. Did
you take any of the honors program today for comparison (since that
was what you were comparing)? Which parts of the pre-WWII program
did you take? Were algebra, physics and chemistry part of it?

Last I was there, it's been almost 20 years, Shakespeare was still
expected for college prep literature courses. Do you have evidence
that it's no longer the case? What's wrong with it not having an
ancient flavor? Modern literature has its place and should be
taught along with Shakespeare.

Honestly, to follow up on my own post, you could possibly be right,
or more than likely, you suffer from when-I-was-a
child-we-were-so-much-more-superior-to-today's-children-because
syndrome. You would really have to go back and compare your high
school texts with today's and I don't think the difficulty would be
much different, but maybe the subjects that are stressed are
different or the approach might be different. You could possibly
think that what you took was so much more difficult, because when you
took them, it *was* difficult. The first time you take a course, it
is more challenging. Now, it's easy, and why are the high school
students today taking such easy courses? I've seen this syndrome
plenty.

Now, you could very well be right, but you need to rely on more than
just your memory of something, because our memories usually paint us
in a more favorable light.

Brilliant, insightful, honest post -- and it will probably be ignored or
trashed by Herman Rubin. Well done, though, toypup. Well done.

BTW, I'm not sure by what you mean about physics and chemistry not
having relevance. I thought they were the most interesting courses
and had plenty of relevance.

--
nimue

"As an unwavering Republican, I have quite naturally burned more books
than I have read." Betty Bowers

English is our friend. We don't have to fight it.
Oprah

Herman Rubin wrote:
In article ,
toypup wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
Some people have complained that certain courses get
grades above 4.0. This is to get "straight A" students
to take the honors courses instead of the weak stuff;
the honors courses are still lower level than the
regular college preparatory program before WWII.

How do you know that?


One would have to be deaf and dumb not to know that.
--
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
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Hmmm...count me as someone who doesn't get it, then.

My mom, high school valedictorian of '41, found my AP courses to be
much trickier than the courses she'd taken as part of her college-prep
curriculum. (Not that she attended college, mind you -- that was only
for her brothers.)

I will give you, though, that that class of '41 had exceptional
penmanship.

Caledonia