This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Questions Episode 2010

13»

Comments

  • Beelzebub
    But you can call him Beelz.
  • But you can call him Beelz.
    His turn-ons are long romantic walks and killing the unborn.
  • But you can call him Beelz.
    But only if you're name is Louis.
  • Oh god. Best show ever.

    I almost choked when Rym was talking about Scott finding funny stuff and laughing really loud. We need more of this.

    :D

    -- Vahid-blood. Lol.
  • I wasn't too impressed with the questions or the answers, but then again I knew all the answers pretty much ahead of time and I know about Scott's need to pee all over the bathroom.

    But that's the problem listening to the show as a close friend brings :-p
  • edited January 2010
    But you can call him Beelz.
    His turn-ons are long romantic walks and killing the unborn.
    I think I gotta new boyfriend to persue.
    I wasn't too impressed with the questions or the answers, but then again I knew all the answers pretty much ahead of time and I know about Scott's need to pee all over the bathroom.
    Apparently there's a Scott like peeboy in my apartment. I know the pain. >_
    Post edited by Viga on
  • GeoGeo
    edited January 2010
    Rym...you say the e-commerce site doesn't benefit you in any way? What about your listeners (at least the ones who'll want to buy things)? The site will benefit them greatly, plus you'll get more money on the side as more and more swag is released. I think that constitutes benefiting you in some way, regardless of how big the impact might be.
    Post edited by Geo on
  • First off, Viga, thanks for the pee :)

    I disagree with you guys on the segregation of people based on intelligence, but not on all points. I do think that schools should allow students freedom to study what they want instead of being so strict on requirements. Elective courses were the greatest part of high school.

    However, besides telling you that segregation seems to have never worked well in history (oceans haven't even been successful in segregating humanity), I also am of the belief that being amongst a mix of people of varying intelligence levels is beneficial to you, not a hindrance.

    I also think that a segregation like this would spread contempt. I don't think I would have as much respect for the AP kids if I had never interacted with them in class. In fact, I think they were an inspiration because of how well they performed in class. I don't believe that we need more people who look down on one another or feel like they're under someone.

    Also, having a ton of people on skype seems possible if some of your round table is skyped in via cell phone. There's a show I listen to (geek brunch) who had a milestone episode and decided to call everyone possible and they had about 5 or 6 people at maximum.
  • However, besides telling you that segregation seems to have never worked well in history
    It worked very, very well at my high school, which has performed so well on the AP tests historically that it has more than once been accused of cheating (and always vindicated).
    I also think that a segregation like this would spread contempt. I don't think I would have as much respect for the AP kids if I had never interacted with them in class. In fact, I think they were an inspiration because of how well they performed in class. I don't believe that we need more people who look down on one another or feel like they're under someon
    Based on my personal experience, I have to strongly disagree. The middle school I attended was deeply dedicated to exactly this idea of integrating high and low performing students for the benefit of both groups. It was a disaster to such an extent that my parents, through threat of lawsuit, forced them to simply send me to the local high school rather than waste my time in this environment.

    Firstly, no segregation of students means no advanced classes. All of the basic curricula were thus constrained by the lowest performing students. Even when they segregated the special education students out of the basic classes, it was still a laughable situation. To recall one (of many) specific examples, seventh grade "science" class included a unit on the metric system. It was planned at two weeks to familiarize the students with it before moving on to other coursework.

    Now, two weeks would have been bad as it was, but things soon became far, far worse. In my particular class, there were about a dozen students who, despite two weeks of nothing but the metric system, just couldn't (or wouldn't) grasp it. The school had two options: allow the students who were proficient with the metric system to move on to other subjects, or hold them back until the low performers caught up. The former option was impossible, as it was basically simple ability-based segregation, at which point there was no reason to even have these students in the same classroom: their coursework would only have diverged continuously for the remainder of their education. The school thus went with the latter option, but with a twist.

    First, they extended the unit by another two weeks school-wide. Second, they required the high performing students to spend their class time tutoring the low-performing students. Third, they cut substantial portions of the year's coursework out of the plan to cover the time wasted on the metric system failures.

    Item one annoyed not only the high performers, but even the average students. There was a great deal of animosity among the students toward the few dozen low performers for holding them back and making school basically worthless for almost a month. Meanwhile, the high-performing students (most of whom either already grasped the metric system prior to the unit, or understood it after the first ten minutes of the first day of the unit) were infuriated and desperately bored, to the point that they started skipping school (often with their parents' consent) or refusing to do the redundant homework.

    Item two was even worse. The low performers resented being subjected to teaching from their "peers," and the high performers resented being forced to try and teach them (instead of learning new things on their own). The level of anger on both side was amazing.

    Item three was the last straw.

    To avoid the lawsuit, the school bussed me to the local high school every day for AP Biology instead.

    If you don't segregate students to some degree based on ability, you will always hold the high performers back, with no real benefit to the low performers. The former resent being forced to waste their time on unchallenging curricula, while the latter just get frustrated at their troubles while being confronted with the constant reminder that all of the high performers get "As" with no effort and are bored all the time in class. I wish the metric system example were an isolated case, but it was by no means atypical, nor was it even the most egregious case.

    Low and high performing students have different educational needs, which are often mutually exclusive.


    My high school had the exact opposite philosophy. Most students were in the "normal" track, while low and high performing students each had their own tracks. Physical education and electives were unsegregated, but all academics were tracked based on ability. It worked wonderfully.
  • Ummm, my high school was the same way you were on different tracks depending on your ability, I figured most schools were like that.
  • My high school had a single track, it lead to boring classes and the low hanging fruit to pick on the over-achievers as not to feel inferior.
  • I went to a primary school with only 21 students, two classrooms and two teachers. While small class sizes are generally considered good, in this case it was a disaster. The thing that had the most detrimental effect was that when I was aged 11, and about to go to the secondary school, I was being taught in the same class as eight year olds. And not just in the same class, but for much of the time the same curriculum too. The result was that when I went to the secondary school, I was as thick as pig shit.

    In the first month or so everyone did a test to see which class they would be in. To my absolute horror, I was put in the idiot class, with all the smelly stupid kids. But I learned so quickly that within a few more months I'd been moved to the next class up. Within the first four years I went from one class to the next, always learning faster than those I was with, always getting 95-100% on the tests, until the second highest class (out of 6 levels, if I remember rightly), where I found my level.
    Second, they required the high performing students to spend their class time tutoring the low-performing students.
    Personally I think more kids should teach others. Not in a one-on-one situation, and not the intelligent kids teaching the stupid kids either. I mean each week a student is given a subject that they have to teach the class about the following week. I've done a lot of teaching of all kinds of subjects, and the time I learn the most, with no exception, is when I'm preparing the lesson. And the time I advance the most with my juggling is when I give advice to others.
  • edited January 2010
    My middle school was tracked. It was the single best thing they could have done; I didn't end up learning shit I didn't need, I made lifelong friends (in middle school, yeah), and I'm still in touch with one of my teachers from those years. To my chagrin, however, history and science were not tracked, so I'd kick back and read HST or ponder organic chem when the material was beneath me.

    Tracking is the only sensible solution to the enormous learning "gap" in public middle schools.
    I also am of the belief that being amongst a mix of people of varying intelligence levels is beneficial to you, not a hindrance.
    I call bullshit. Whenever I was stuck with students who were significantly lower on the ladder than myself or uninterested in the material, I was either derided for being a know-it-all or forced to accept the burden of another student in group work. I found it stressful and frustrating, and was eventually disgusted by my peers who were in a place of learning only to ignore all of their instruction. I appreciated a setting like I had in my English class, hand-tailored by someone for kids like me. That focus on nurturing the student is what teaches, not a shotgun-teaching approach that tries to cater to kids like me, who started in on thousand-page books in first grade, and kids who meow in the back of the room to piss off the teacher at the same time.

    Intellectual segregation is not the same as other segregation; there's a reason 3rd graders don't mingle with college students.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • Personally I think more kids should teach others. Not in a one-on-one situation, and not the intelligent kids teaching the stupid kids either. I mean each week a student is given a subject that they have to teach the class about the following week.
    I definitely agree. At RIT, my Political Communication seminar was set up such that each student (of eight) had to teach one week's worth of the class. So long as the students are of a similar level of ability, I am a huge advocate of this sort of education.
  • In my experience, I have definitely found that helping others learn has helped me develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
  • The Scrym makes a mighty fine podcast, and I'm glad you are back.
  • Myself, Scott, Emily, Judith, and Natalie all actively participated in No Pants 2010.

    We'll have the story tonight.
  • @Rym: I think you guys missed it. I see it listed at 1-10-10.
  • No PantsLooks Cold...though I'd probably be ok.
  • Best picture from No Pants:
    image
  • Thank you Rym.
  • All I could think the whole time I was pantsless:

    image
  • Scott's TotD++
Sign In or Register to comment.