Where is balance? -- Re: Academic priorities
|
From: jmfbahciv on 3 May 2005 05:17 In article <R59de.3836$4v.2311(a)trndny03>, Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap(a)verizon.net> wrote: >Steve Richfie1d wrote: > >> I was at one time the top freshman calculus student at the University of >> Washington after getting a perfect 800 on the College Entrance >> Examination Board's Advanced Math test. In the following ~40 years, the >> *ONLY* practical use I have made for non-numerical calculus methods is a >> couple of times for computing optimal methods, e.g. how to divide up the >> bins in a complex sort to make it run as fast as possible by >> differentiating an equation for the total effort, setting the first >> derivative to zero, and solving for the minimum/maximum conditions. I >> have not recovered nor will I EVER expect to recover the time I put in >> learning all that stuff, as I could have even done these couple of tasks >> numerically at the cost of another couple of hours of work. > >It seems to me that the point of teaching kids a bit of rigorous mathematics >(with proofs and everything) has more to do with their intellectual >development than with practical applications. Nope. Anybody who debugs hard/software uses this rigor. Think about it. Isolating the symptom is really based on making an assumptions, demonstrating their validity, and slowly eliminating facts that don't matter or interfere with exercising the "proof". > >A person who understands what a proof from a set of axioms accomplishes has >a model of what unassailable reasoning and knowledge-to-a-certainty looks >likes -- or would look like, if we possessed anything like it in other >domains. In addition to being an aesthetic experience, this furnishes a >yardstick against which all other sorts of argument and demonstration can >be measured. It instills a capacity for healthy but measured skepticism >towards conclusions and claims put forward by anyone in the domains of the >natural and the social sciences, the humanities, theology, and the whole >rest of human thought and enterprise. I call this objectivity. > >Practical applications?: well, among other things, maybe they will be better >voters for being able recognize utter bullpucky when they see it and >knowing the difference between assertion and argument. Practical applications: Fixing the damned bugs. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Kevin G. Rhoads on 3 May 2005 08:08 >? I'm not familiar with what you mean by "zero tolerance", but given a >"check-in" procedure, I see no problems. "Zero tolerance" means "zero thinking" -- the administration claims NOT to have any responsibility, becuase all judgement has been taken out of the process. So when a butter knife is found in the open back of apick-up truck, the Honors Senior who drove (his Mother's truck) to school is suspended, and put into a diversion program for juvenile delinquents with violence problems. Justification: "Zero Tolerance" There is NO due process (They never determined WHO put the butter knife there), just think of the possibilities this opens for bullies! Slip a butter knife into someone else's locker (through the vent holes) or ... and Voila! the administration will persecute your target for you -- even baseless allegations of wrongdoing have been used to justify punishment of schoolkids with otherwise spotless records and good attendance and grades -- what do you think that means? There is NO consideration, amelioration or circumstances to think about -- judges and lawyers are beginning to speak out about "zero tolerance" -- because it sends the WRONG message about the law. (It says the law is stupid, you can abuse it, just don't get caught etc.) JUST SAY "NO" TO ZERO TOLERANCE. Banning real weapons neither requires nor is achieved by Zero Tolerance programs. These are counterproductive, they (on average) worsen the the problems they are intended to solve. It is a good sound-bite for a politician AND NOTHING MORE.
From: Sander Vesik on 3 May 2005 09:09 In comp.arch Marco S Hyman <marc(a)snafu.org> wrote: > rpl <plinnane3REMOVE(a)NOSPAMyahoo.com> writes: > > > > just failing to help solve the problem, they are active contributing to > > > it. (One example: "zero tolerance") > > > > zero tolerance of what? bringing fully automatic weapons onto school > > grounds? > > It wasn't that long ago when it was not uncommon for children from about > 10 years old and up to bring weapons to school, rifles shotguns that were > stored in the school gun rack or cloak room during school hours. The I'm really glad I never have lived and am never going to live anywhere where such could happen, never mind be considered the norm. > > // marc -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++
From: Casper H.S. Dik on 3 May 2005 09:26 "Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrhoads(a)alum.mit.edu> writes: >>? I'm not familiar with what you mean by "zero tolerance", but given a >>"check-in" procedure, I see no problems. >"Zero tolerance" means "zero thinking" -- the administration claims NOT to have any >responsibility, becuase all judgement has been taken out of the process. So when >a butter knife is found in the open back of apick-up truck, the Honors Senior >who drove (his Mother's truck) to school is suspended, and put into a diversion >program for juvenile delinquents with violence problems. Justification: "Zero >Tolerance" And a butter knife isn't even a knife; it has "knife" in its name but that doesn't make it a knife in the sense of "dangerous object with sharp edge or point". >There is NO due process (They never determined WHO put the butter knife there), just >think of the possibilities this opens for bullies! Slip a butter knife into someone >else's locker (through the vent holes) or ... and Voila! the administration will >persecute your target for you -- even baseless allegations of wrongdoing have been used >to justify punishment of schoolkids with otherwise spotless records and good attendance >and grades -- what do you think that means? >There is NO consideration, amelioration or circumstances to think about -- judges >and lawyers are beginning to speak out about "zero tolerance" -- because it sends >the WRONG message about the law. (It says the law is stupid, you can abuse it, just don't >get caught etc.) So sue the school; isn't that what law is about? Casper -- Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems. Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may be fiction rather than truth.
From: Roland Hutchinson on 3 May 2005 10:45
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <R59de.3836$4v.2311(a)trndny03>, > RolandýHutchinsoný<my.spamtrap(a)verizon.net>ýwrote: >>It seems to me that the point of teaching kids a bit of rigorous > mathematics >>(with proofs and everything) has more to do with their intellectual >>development than with practical applications. > > Nope.ýýAnybodyýwhoýdebugsýhard/softwareýusesýthisýrigor.ýýThink > about it.ýýIsolatingýtheýsymptomýisýreallyýbasedýonýmakingýan > assumptions, demonstrating their validity, and slowly eliminating > facts that don't matter or interfere with exercising the "proof". Well, I did think about it! I don't (and didn't) deny that there exist direct practical applications for rigorous reasoning. I merely assert (and asserted) that that's not the chief reason why we teach (or ought to teach) it. In point of fact, I would argue that it's the students who (as I did!) go on to "fuzzy studies" rather than technology who might be said to need it more: precisely so that they will have something in their background to remember that would remind them from time to time of what a "non-fuzzzy" study looks like, so that they might keep their own work and thinking in an appropriate perspective. The engineers, on the other hand, will be able to pick up the logical/deductive tools they need along the way through experience, apprenticeship, and independent reading if for some reason they are neglected in the formal curriculum. -- Roland HutchinsonýýýýýýýýýýýýýýWillýplayýviolaýdaýgambaýforýfood. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam.ýýIfýyourýmessageýlooksýlikeýspamýIýmayýnotýseeýit. |