Time To Overhaul Our Education System.

[nightrider]

6 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Over a hundred years ago Einstein showed that Newtons laws are an excellent approximation and work on the snooker table - they do not work in the Universe. 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously. I doubt we are teaching the finer points of the full calculations using General Relativity to school children though.

[Annie Bynnol]

47 minutes ago, RJRB said:

 

Returning to the science,your argument seems to centre on your experience at this specialist cutting edge level I.e graduate and post graduate level

 

This is wrong.

The first time I mention "graduate and post graduate level" was in response to your opinion that there is a "...  ready demand for text books for the more demanding university courses,both new and second hand." I have only parental experience of the current state of second hand text books and of University  Chemistry courses. 

Also in several posts I have stated either "children", "pupils", "secondary" or "11-16".

 

[nightrider]

12 hours ago, Anna B said:

I agree with much of this. Our education still seems to be embedded in the 'glory years' of the 50s. We need to move on and make it fit for purpose, relevant and useful. Most of it is about regurgitating 'facts' for exams, which IMO isn't really education.

 

I can honestly say I have never used trigonometry, cosines  or Logarithms since school (I didn't understand them then, and I wouldn't now) but never learned anything much about money, stocks and shares or banking systems which would have been a lot more useful. I enjoyed history modules but never got an overview of history and why certain events were of particular importance.

 

We need to teach youngsters how to think, not what to think, and encourage a love of learning which will last them a lifetime. 

I think there is a reasonable argument that teaching  trigonometry, cosines  or Logarithms etc helps to develop logical thinking skills in order to understand it (even if one does not fully understand the topic in the end). I would be curious to know how many people who say they could never understand these things in fact just had useless teachers. Teaching does not pay well and most math graduates can get very well paid jobs doing easier things that are a lot less hassle ( I know enough teachers to know its a horrible job nowadays).

 

I agree its a scandal we don't teach more about money, stocks etc to empower people to use their money wisely and also to not get conned. I don't think it should be an either/or with maths though! I suspect its deliberate we don't teach about banking systems though, a lot of people don't want anyone to know how money really works (esp. the bit about the magic money tree because then all kinds of awkward questions could be asked...)

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by nightrider

[Annie Bynnol]

18 minutes ago, nightrider said:

Obviously. I doubt we are teaching the finer points of the full calculations using General Relativity to school children though.

General Relativity is the name of a theory and its mathematical derivation and application is not required, but it would need to be referred to in good teaching to cover the syllabus eg at 14-16 the AQA GCSE Physics Specification  p72- 75 Space Physics and p76 Key Ideas.

Oh I forgot -more importantly the children will ask because they are interested. 

[RJRB]

24 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

This is wrong.

The first time I mention "graduate and post graduate level" was in response to your opinion that there is a "...  ready demand for text books for the more demanding university courses,both new and second hand." I have only parental experience of the current state of second hand text books and of University  Chemistry courses. 

Also in several posts I have stated either "children", "pupils", "secondary" or "11-16".

 

Just going back to my original post it does state that my thoughts had not been fully thought through.

I also said “the days of text books is gone”.

So I am moderating my views as I go along ,and now think that there is a continuing need for text books through primary and secondary education.

As said by Sir Isaac Newton “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”

 

[alchresearch]

6 minutes ago, RJRB said:

So I am moderating my views as I go along ,and now think that there is a continuing need for text books through primary and secondary education.

 

 

Yep, if it ain't broke etc.

 

e-books are certainly convenient, but I sometimes think there's no substitute for a paper book.

 

[Annie Bynnol]

11 minutes ago, nightrider said:

I think there is a reasonable argument that teaching  trigonometry, cosines  or Logarithms etc helps to develop logical thinking skills in order to understand it (even if one does not fully understand the topic in the end). I would be curious to know how many people who say they could never understand these things in fact just had useless teachers. Teaching does not pay well and most math graduates can get very well paid jobs doing easier things that are a lot less hassle ( I know enough teachers to know its a horrible job nowadays).

 

...

 

Totally true and sadly not new.

A generation of poorly educated but clever people who served in WWII were allowed to teach in schools post war. 

In the 60s the shortage of science and maths graduates led to too many poorly qualified science and maths teachers.

In the 70s and 80s , the drive to increase the numbers of graduates and unemployment created poorly trained and motivated science teachers.

In the 90s and 00s the "churn" of good science teaching staff and a "gravitation" towards "good, Ofsted" free schools left  many schools without Maths and Physics graduates.

 

 

15 minutes ago, RJRB said:

...

As said by Sir Isaac Newton “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”

 

Absolutely.

That was on my lab wall for 30 years. 

[the_bloke]

As someone who went through the education system in the 1980s, we didn't have many text books then. The obvious ones were French and German language text books, as well as novels/plays etc we were studying in English We had SMP maths books. I don't remember a Science book.  When I reached A Levels (Maths/Physics/Media) the only text book I had was one for Applied Maths.

 

Everything else was copying what the teacher put on the board; your notes became your text book.

 

No reason why all of those books couldn't be replaced with materials online, or ebooks, they were only reference.

 

Good luck covering your iPad in wallpaper though.

[Bargepole23]

3 hours ago, nightrider said:

I think there is a reasonable argument that teaching  trigonometry, cosines  or Logarithms etc helps to develop logical thinking skills in order to understand it (even if one does not fully understand the topic in the end). I would be curious to know how many people who say they could never understand these things in fact just had useless teachers. Teaching does not pay well and most math graduates can get very well paid jobs doing easier things that are a lot less hassle ( I know enough teachers to know its a horrible job nowadays).

 

I agree its a scandal we don't teach more about money, stocks etc to empower people to use their money wisely and also to not get conned. I don't think it should be an either/or with maths though! I suspect its deliberate we don't teach about banking systems though, a lot of people don't want anyone to know how money really works (esp. the bit about the magic money tree because then all kinds of awkward questions could be asked...)

 

I don't get the argument about teaching people about finances, as an alternative to maths. Its a few lessons in what I knew as form period to learn about mortgages, credit cards and the like. Hardly a subject in itself, and hardly taxing mathematically. Similarly, the operation of money markets, government finance and taxation, stock markets could be, and maybe is covered in form period or PSHE.

 

Mathematics at GCSE and A level is one of the crucial building blocks of science and engineering education and all that comes from that.

[Anna B]

9 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

I don't get the argument about teaching people about finances, as an alternative to maths. Its a few lessons in what I knew as form period to learn about mortgages, credit cards and the like. Hardly a subject in itself, and hardly taxing mathematically. Similarly, the operation of money markets, government finance and taxation, stock markets could be, and maybe is covered in form period or PSHE.

 

Mathematics at GCSE and A level is one of the crucial building blocks of science and engineering education and all that comes from that.

I'm not suggesting finance should be an alternative to maths, but be part of it. Engineering etc may need certain aspects of maths but not everybody will become engineers, but everybody will need financial education. Maths should be relevant.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Anna B