PhotoMath Solves Math Problems via Video
-
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Welcome to Americanism, where the intelligent and creative get punished and the mediocre get rewarded.
We are a big country, more like India, China and the Philippines. We don't have the luxury of having good education for everyone and high end jobs for everyone like small, elite countries like Norway, Finland and Switzerland have. They don't need "base economy" workers, they have other countries for that nearby. They are small and a huge percentage of their population can have amazing jobs. But the US is too large. Canada could try for that, but the US and Mexico are just too big. We have to provide the service sector, the manufacturing sector, the mining and transportation sectors, the agriculture, the forestry, the tourism. We can't make ourselves supported by banking, design, engineering and research. We can do those things, but they have to be a sideline. The core economy must be able to support hundreds of millions of people.
Great point - we have this broken notion that everyone can be and more importantly, should be at the top of their class, but as Scott pointed out, there just isn't enough room for that. Maybe in 20-50 years when our technology can take over all of the menial service jobs, but not today.
I pity when that happens.
Really? why? sure we'll have a time where we'll have an employment problem but in a generation, with luck we'll have lower population growth, yet at the same time faster knowledge understanding.
-
@Dashrender said:
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Welcome to Americanism, where the intelligent and creative get punished and the mediocre get rewarded.
We are a big country, more like India, China and the Philippines. We don't have the luxury of having good education for everyone and high end jobs for everyone like small, elite countries like Norway, Finland and Switzerland have. They don't need "base economy" workers, they have other countries for that nearby. They are small and a huge percentage of their population can have amazing jobs. But the US is too large. Canada could try for that, but the US and Mexico are just too big. We have to provide the service sector, the manufacturing sector, the mining and transportation sectors, the agriculture, the forestry, the tourism. We can't make ourselves supported by banking, design, engineering and research. We can do those things, but they have to be a sideline. The core economy must be able to support hundreds of millions of people.
Great point - we have this broken notion that everyone can be and more importantly, should be at the top of their class, but as Scott pointed out, there just isn't enough room for that. Maybe in 20-50 years when our technology can take over all of the menial service jobs, but not today.
I pity when that happens.
Really? why? sure we'll have a time where we'll have an employment problem but in a generation, with luck we'll have lower population growth, yet at the same time faster knowledge understanding.
For starters, only 10% of the population will ever be in the top 10%. Next, the huddled masses of average people aren't motivated enough to become part of that 10%. Those who are... are what makes up that 10%. Yes, we can do a better job of education, but we first need to understand and admit that not everyone cares or is capable of being excellent at life in general (in terms of education, career, etc.). We need a system that is dynamic enough to meet the needs of those who are under the bar, yet flexible enough to nurture those who are above it. Squeezing both ends to the middle can only result in failure. To cover that inevitable failure, the system lowers the bar. In the end, we get a mechanism for churning out below-average workers.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@Dashrender said:
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Welcome to Americanism, where the intelligent and creative get punished and the mediocre get rewarded.
We are a big country, more like India, China and the Philippines. We don't have the luxury of having good education for everyone and high end jobs for everyone like small, elite countries like Norway, Finland and Switzerland have. They don't need "base economy" workers, they have other countries for that nearby. They are small and a huge percentage of their population can have amazing jobs. But the US is too large. Canada could try for that, but the US and Mexico are just too big. We have to provide the service sector, the manufacturing sector, the mining and transportation sectors, the agriculture, the forestry, the tourism. We can't make ourselves supported by banking, design, engineering and research. We can do those things, but they have to be a sideline. The core economy must be able to support hundreds of millions of people.
Great point - we have this broken notion that everyone can be and more importantly, should be at the top of their class, but as Scott pointed out, there just isn't enough room for that. Maybe in 20-50 years when our technology can take over all of the menial service jobs, but not today.
I pity when that happens.
Really? why? sure we'll have a time where we'll have an employment problem but in a generation, with luck we'll have lower population growth, yet at the same time faster knowledge understanding.
For starters, only 10% of the population will ever be in the top 10%. Next, the huddled masses of average people aren't motivated enough to become part of that 10%. Those who are... are what makes up that 10%. Yes, we can do a better job of education, but we first need to understand and admit that not everyone cares or is capable of being excellent at life in general (in terms of education, career, etc.). We need a system that is dynamic enough to meet the needs of those who are under the bar, yet flexible enough to nurture those who are above it. Squeezing both ends to the middle can only result in failure. To cover that inevitable failure, the system lowers the bar. In the end, we get a mechanism for churning out below-average workers.
To be honest, I think the way classes are organized is backwards. While lumping people by ability seems smart, you have the brilliant but lazy kids together with the smart and hard-working, and some above-average and extremely diligent, all in one class. It would make more sense to go, not by aptitude, but attitude. Put all the kids willing to work their ass off together and mentor to kids as necessary. Put all the kids who don't give a $4!+ in another class. Assign teachers accordingly. You'd probably yield much more productive results, albeit not in terms of statistics.
-
@thanksaj said:
@art_of_shred said:
@Dashrender said:
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Welcome to Americanism, where the intelligent and creative get punished and the mediocre get rewarded.
We are a big country, more like India, China and the Philippines. We don't have the luxury of having good education for everyone and high end jobs for everyone like small, elite countries like Norway, Finland and Switzerland have. They don't need "base economy" workers, they have other countries for that nearby. They are small and a huge percentage of their population can have amazing jobs. But the US is too large. Canada could try for that, but the US and Mexico are just too big. We have to provide the service sector, the manufacturing sector, the mining and transportation sectors, the agriculture, the forestry, the tourism. We can't make ourselves supported by banking, design, engineering and research. We can do those things, but they have to be a sideline. The core economy must be able to support hundreds of millions of people.
Great point - we have this broken notion that everyone can be and more importantly, should be at the top of their class, but as Scott pointed out, there just isn't enough room for that. Maybe in 20-50 years when our technology can take over all of the menial service jobs, but not today.
I pity when that happens.
Really? why? sure we'll have a time where we'll have an employment problem but in a generation, with luck we'll have lower population growth, yet at the same time faster knowledge understanding.
For starters, only 10% of the population will ever be in the top 10%. Next, the huddled masses of average people aren't motivated enough to become part of that 10%. Those who are... are what makes up that 10%. Yes, we can do a better job of education, but we first need to understand and admit that not everyone cares or is capable of being excellent at life in general (in terms of education, career, etc.). We need a system that is dynamic enough to meet the needs of those who are under the bar, yet flexible enough to nurture those who are above it. Squeezing both ends to the middle can only result in failure. To cover that inevitable failure, the system lowers the bar. In the end, we get a mechanism for churning out below-average workers.
To be honest, I think the way classes are organized is backwards. While lumping people by ability seems smart, you have the brilliant but lazy kids together with the smart and hard-working, and some above-average and extremely diligent, all in one class. It would make more sense to go, not by aptitude, but attitude. Put all the kids willing to work their ass off together and mentor to kids as necessary. Put all the kids who don't give a $4!+ in another class. Assign teachers accordingly. You'd probably yield much more productive results, albeit not in terms of statistics.
That's kind of how it was when I was in grade school. We had 4 groups per class. In 6th grade, there was 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4. The 1's were the upper crust. It had to be a mix though, as 4 relatively equal-in-size groups had to be parsed out of the total group. Still, it set the pace closer to what the group was ready for. Too bad all the whiners had to come around and complain "it's not fair", and even worse that anyone listened.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@thanksaj said:
@art_of_shred said:
@Dashrender said:
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Welcome to Americanism, where the intelligent and creative get punished and the mediocre get rewarded.
We are a big country, more like India, China and the Philippines. We don't have the luxury of having good education for everyone and high end jobs for everyone like small, elite countries like Norway, Finland and Switzerland have. They don't need "base economy" workers, they have other countries for that nearby. They are small and a huge percentage of their population can have amazing jobs. But the US is too large. Canada could try for that, but the US and Mexico are just too big. We have to provide the service sector, the manufacturing sector, the mining and transportation sectors, the agriculture, the forestry, the tourism. We can't make ourselves supported by banking, design, engineering and research. We can do those things, but they have to be a sideline. The core economy must be able to support hundreds of millions of people.
Great point - we have this broken notion that everyone can be and more importantly, should be at the top of their class, but as Scott pointed out, there just isn't enough room for that. Maybe in 20-50 years when our technology can take over all of the menial service jobs, but not today.
I pity when that happens.
Really? why? sure we'll have a time where we'll have an employment problem but in a generation, with luck we'll have lower population growth, yet at the same time faster knowledge understanding.
For starters, only 10% of the population will ever be in the top 10%. Next, the huddled masses of average people aren't motivated enough to become part of that 10%. Those who are... are what makes up that 10%. Yes, we can do a better job of education, but we first need to understand and admit that not everyone cares or is capable of being excellent at life in general (in terms of education, career, etc.). We need a system that is dynamic enough to meet the needs of those who are under the bar, yet flexible enough to nurture those who are above it. Squeezing both ends to the middle can only result in failure. To cover that inevitable failure, the system lowers the bar. In the end, we get a mechanism for churning out below-average workers.
To be honest, I think the way classes are organized is backwards. While lumping people by ability seems smart, you have the brilliant but lazy kids together with the smart and hard-working, and some above-average and extremely diligent, all in one class. It would make more sense to go, not by aptitude, but attitude. Put all the kids willing to work their ass off together and mentor to kids as necessary. Put all the kids who don't give a $4!+ in another class. Assign teachers accordingly. You'd probably yield much more productive results, albeit not in terms of statistics.
That's kind of how it was when I was in grade school. We had 4 groups per class. In 6th grade, there was 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4. The 1's were the upper crust. It had to be a mix though, as 4 relatively equal-in-size groups had to be parsed out of the total group. Still, it set the pace closer to what the group was ready for. Too bad all the whiners had to come around and complain "it's not fair", and even worse that anyone listened.
It amazes me how many parents I saw get upset with teachers for giving their sons/daughters grades that were well deserved. The student wouldn't want to try but they wanted their kid getting straight As, and it was the teachers fault if they didn't. I also saw plenty of kids who I'd seen get into certain honors classes or whatever because their parents had basically demanded it.
-
-
@art_of_shred said:
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/{e4e28807-361d-44b2-8681-b42f76405d24}.gif
That's the exact comic I was thinking of!
