posted
"The reason you don't seem to value experience is that you're inexperienced enough not to know better." How charitable of you.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
when are you going to understand that this kind of statement isn't a judgement call Pel, it's an attempt at a wake-up call.
and the reasons I say it are: 1) You are young, and therefore only have a few years of realy experience under your belt, so it's hard to imagine that you have really gotten its importance yet (I knnow I didn't until well into college) 2) Everything you say screams that you haven't had enough experience yet to get it...
again, not a judgement call, just a statement of youth.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Pel, I can think of an analogy in my own life that might clarify a bit. I'm 27 now. I really, really don't want kids. I don't think I'm ever going to want them. In fact I'm pretty darn certain of it.
However, I know sometimes in the 30s female hormones kick in, and women experience massive desires to have children. I know someone who had her tubes tied at about my age and is very happy with her decision not to have kids. I've strongly considered it myself. But, I haven't actually experienced my 30s yet, and maybe my child-mothering instincts will kick in yet. I realize I'm inexperienced not to know better at this point. Don't know when I will be experienced to know yet either. That's just life.
posted
Pel, it's not that you don't agree that annoys people. Lots of people don't agree with me, and that's cool. It's not that you ignore people either. It's that you dismiss people's expertise out of hand. When someone who is an expert in something disagrees with me, I might be right and s/he might be wrong. But I should at least try to find a third angle to view the situation from, one where my thoughts and my "opponent's" thoughts could possibly coexist. (EDIT: And if you look back over my interactions with FlyingCow, for instance, you might notice that I have tried to do just that myself. I know that if we really compared philosophies, he and I probably aren't entirely in agreement with each other. But I don't disrespect his learning or his observations. I believe we may be looking at the situation from different angles, and it's possible for both of our philosophies to have some validity.) I also had better devote at least a couple of minutes to thinking about the possibility that I could be wrong.
Lots of people have actually had more or less this same idea for a secondary school curriculum. Some of them are (I imagine) older or better-credentialed than I am. Many are less. So nothing is right or wrong because I say it is. But you can't dismiss my experience altogether. You can't even say that all perspectives are equal--they are clearly not, and saying so is just a democratic-seeming form of dismissal.
I don't know why I keep trying to make you understand. I must see some potential in you, but I am seriously getting tired of the effort.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was very respectful to people who disagreed with me, explaining my position on each issue. No, I did not substantially modify my curriculum, but this is because, while I respected the views of others, I did not consider them, upon reflection, to be in accordance with the philosophy behind the two curricula I have proposed. Doubtless, they would say the same about my ideas.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe instead of not addressing what you don't understand, you could ask a question, or ask him to rephrase. Do you see why not addressing it because you don't understand makes it hard for people to take you seriously?
How do you feel in real life when you say something and someone acts as if you hadn't spoken?
posted
You were not respectful; you were dismissive. You said people were wrong, but you did not attempt to reconcile how people with more experience and education could simply be wrong. They just were, because they disagreed with you. The fact is, people are rarely entirely wrong or entirely right. When you respect people you try to find common ground.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
What I'm getting at is something you undoubtedly learned in middle school or early high school (I'm assuming here that your teachers weren't totally lost in the woods, but I could be wrong).
There are several types of sources you can draw upon, and those sources have differing values.
The most important of these are primary sources, which come from actual first hand accounts, interviews with witnesses to an event, artifact evidence, archaeological evidence, etc.
The next level consists of secondary sources, which are conclusions and writings based on primary sources. These add an extra layer of distance between the learner and the subject, and aren't as valuable because you have to interpret information through an extra set of biases.
Further down the list are tertiary sources, which were based off of other secondary sources. And so on.
My list earlier was trying to gauge your understanding of this. Obviously, an actual first hand account written by an observer to the events of that period (primary source) would be preferable over a high school paper on the subject (tertiary or lower, based on secondary and tertiary sources, with perhaps some primary sources.)
This is why archaeology is so important to history. It's also why anthropology is so important. These fields search for primary sources (a papyrus scroll showing economic data leading up to the rise of a great military power, for instance) which are used to shape our understanding of history. If a newly found primary source and secondary source contradict, the secondary source (usually) has interpreted something wrong.
The point is that people on this forum who have had personal life experience are valuable primary sources for you to listen to and learn from. You do not have to agree with their views, certainly, but you seem far to quick to either a) ignore their points and not reevaluate your own opinions based on new information or b) flatly refute their experiences (primary sources) out of hand.
As a self-proclaimed history student who is interested in classical study, you must surely understand why primary sources are preferable in many ways to secondary sources. Why is it, then, that you find it so hard to value life experience? To see why Ic and myself are so frustrated after handing you primary source experience over years of educating students, only to watch as you blindly continue on your path without acknowledging or adapting to new information?
A good historian adapts his (or her) theories when new primary sources are discovered or revealed, reconciling any contradictions there may be. You have shown a marked reluctance to even acknowledge opinions or points made outside your own views.
Let's look at two conversations. Which is more rational?
quote:Convo 1
Person 1: "I am right." Person 2: "What about this, that and the other thing?" Person 1: "That's interesting. As for this, you need to remember... As for that, I see your point. Let me try a different angle on my opinion... As for the other thing, I don't see how that's relevant. Person 2: "Good point about this. I still don't see how you've accounted for that. The other thing is relevant because..." Person 1: As for that I've been thinking more on it, and I think I may need to readjust my thoughts. Get back to me. As for the other thing I still don't see it as relevant because of..."
In this conversation, Person 1 is receptive to criticism and other opinions, and does his best to respond to comments made. Weaknesses in the argument are admitted to and adjusted for, and misunderstandings are asked about.
quote:Convo 2
Person 1: "I am right." Person 2: "What about this, that and the other thing?" Person 1: "I am right." Person 2: "You didn't even address this, that and the other thing." Person 1: "I am right." Person 2: "Your argument doesn't make any sense, and you aren't answering my points." Person 1: "I am right. I make perfect sense. Stop attacking me."
In this conversation, Person 1 is not receptive to others ideas and becomes defensive when questioned about his argument.
We've seen a lot more of Convo 2 from you than we have Convo 1.
Edit: typo.
Edit 2: Oops! First typo I fixed wasn't even what you were talking about. Last sentence has been fixed, now.
posted
Icarus, which of the mutually exclusive views should I be trying to reconcile with my own. On the other thread, we had every opinion from "Algebra should not be taught in Middle School" to "Both Algebra and Geometry should be taught in Middle School," clearly these views cannot be reconciled, except in so much as the middle ground existed in my proposition. On my threads, I was dismissed far more than I dismissed, particularly in regards to learning disabilities ( I pointed out several facts and was then criticized for not taking into account a specific disability which was neither named nor described.) And, on this thread, I cannot begin to reconcile the view that young people lack the intelligence and maturity to make decisions regarding their education with the view that they do. That which you ask of me is not logically possible, I am sorry for that, but it is not my fault.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: on this thread, I cannot begin to reconcile the view that young people lack the intelligence and maturity to make decisions regarding their education with the view that they do.
Here's the answer: some young people can make their own educational decisions, some can't. Most aren't yet capable of making the decisions that are in their own best interests for later on in life. But some are.
There is no logical fallacy. They both exist and are true.
quote:On my threads, I was dismissed far more than I dismissed, particularly in regards to learning disabilities ( I pointed out several facts and was then criticized for not taking into account a specific disability which was neither named nor described.)
The reverse of this is true. You pointed out that one specific disability -- dyslexia -- is occasionally not crippling, and from this observation made the generalization that all children can learn a challenging curriculum.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, all true learning disabilities that I know (dyslexia, dysgrapia, dysphasia, dyscalcaculia and dyspraxia) are roughly equal in severity, but affect different aspects. (The exception would by dysphasia, which, uncorrected, may cause problems in nearly all areas of life, but less significantly so than being deaf.)
BannaOJ, No, I would not agree that my curriculum is more difficult than the average child can handle at that age, although it is certainly more difficult than the average child is asked to handle at that age.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, all true learning disabilities that I know (dyslexia, dysgrapia, dysphasia, dyscalcaculia and dyspraxia) are roughly equal in severity, but affect different aspects.
I would suggest that you aren't qualified under any criteria to make this determination, nor even to determine what constitutes a "true" learning disability.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I did not argue with your math proposal, Pel. Who proposed that Algebra and Geometry should be taught in middle school? I don't quite remember that.
It's not my job to come up with reconciliations for you, as that would involve me suggesting views I don't actually hold. Notice, however, that reconciling differing views was only one option I suggested among many. But one possible middle ground is teaching those advanced classes, but not to all kids. Another option is simply questioning people. Then there's trying to raise objections to their beliefs, and answer people's criticisms of your own. ("You're wrong, because my father was a pediatrician and he said so, and my teacher studied with Alex Trebek and Sartre, and he thinks you're wrong also," by the way, is not an objection. It is a dismissal.) A thoughtful poster would not use one of these techniques all the time, but use all of them from time to time, as the situation warrants.
For instance, in one interaction between FlyingCow and myself on one of these threads, he seemed to be raising an objection to what I was arguing. In his objection, he cited his observations and experience as a teacher. I questioned his objection, or, if you prefer, I raised an objection to it. In my rebuttal, I cited my experience as a parent. In the end, we found common ground, that rejected neither my intelligence and experience or his. It's entirely possible that we might have failed to do so, and agreed amicably to disagree. If that had been the case, though, I would still respect FlyingCow, despite thinking he was egregiously wrong in this particular, because I know something of his experiences, his talents, and his qualifications. If he were a stranger I did not know, I might seek to explore what has lead him to his erroneous conclusions. When I disagree with someone, I don't usually say "You're wrong," but rather "I disagree, because . . ." (Unless I am being cheeky with someone I know well enough to know that they will take it well.)
And, finally, if I disagree with someone who clearly has more education and experience in the area than I do, I give their opinion quite a bit more weight. If I still disagree, I had better think long and hard about how an intelligent, qualified person could be wrong about his/her own area of expertise. If I disagree with Rabbit about environmental science, I had better come up with something a little better than "she's just wrong, because my shallow reading indicates otherwise."
-o-
quote:( I pointed out several facts and was then criticized for not taking into account a specific disability which was neither named nor described.)
You were dismissed with regard to learning disability because you made an erroneous assertion about what learning disabilities existed and what they entailed. Did you follow FlyingCow's links? I did not actually address your statements, because they were insulting. You acted so all-knowing that you had the gall to correct me when it came to what my kids could and could not do . . . you were not worth replying to at that point. (And that brings me back to how you perceive people slamming you when in fact they merely disagree with you. When I post in your threads at all, I am taking you seriously. When I decide you are not worth taking seriously, I will simply not reply to you at all.)
quote:And, on this thread, I cannot begin to reconcile the view that young people lack the intelligence and maturity to make decisions regarding their education with the view that they do.
This is a recurring issue with you--whether it's deliberate or not, you repeatedly ascribe to people things that they have not said. People are slamming you. People are bullying you. You have done nothing wrong, and are victimized at every turn! (Here's a bit of advice, in the form of a rhetorical question: What's the one common factor in all of your negative interactions?)
Nobody proposed the view that young people lacked the intelligence and maturity to make decisions regarding their education. While many of us, including myself, proposed the view that they do*, only you proposed the view that they should be entrusted with the right to make all the decisions with regard to their education. And you're right, you can't reconcile an extremist view with any differing views. For that reason, I have few, if any extremist views. (Which is not to say that extremist views are necessarily always wrong. I just happen to think they often are.) So if you can't reconcile your extremist view with our moderate views, you will have to stick with one of the many other options for polite discourse. Those of us with more moderate opinions can easily find common ground, fine-tuning how many electives kids should have, how many years of core subjects they should take, what should be considered core for all kids and what should not . . .
*But you weren't including me there, were you? You were dishonestly arguing against a straw-man version of my argument. Did you somehow miss all the posts where I talked about what a shame it was that my school did not allow any electives? And yet somehow you wish to portray me as arguing against giving young people choices? Are you blind or dishonest? Which is it, man?
-o-
The goal here is not universal agreement. The goals are understanding the beliefs those you disagree with, seeing if your ideas stand up to challenges from intelligent peers (and non-peers), and being able to coexist in at least a pretense of friendliness with those whom you disagree with.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? What makes you think the average child *can* handle the advanced subjects at that age?
I'm not trying to be faecitious here, I really want to know. You see, I used to believe the same thing you did. Because *I* could do it at that age couldn't everybody?
Since I was homeschooled, the closest I could come to someone else going through the same educational process would be using my siblings. And guess what? My mother did the same things with them that she did with me. I was reading by the age of 3, neither of my siblings did. The one sibling didn't start reading til about 6 tne other about 5. They aren't any dumber than I am, they just learned things at a different pace than I did. Right there it makes a huge difference in what a child can handle at any given age. I took Calculus at 15, one of my siblings took it about 19, and the other never took it.
What I'm saying is that I think you are judging average by your own abilities. I don't believe that your ablities are actually average, and as a result I think your curriculum is more difficult than the average child can handle at that age.
posted
Tom, that list was taken from Wikipedia, which, in turn, took it from the U.S. government, that list is as official as they get.
BannaOJ, yes, the average child, not any child, but the average child.
" I did not actually address your statements, because they were insulting. You acted so all-knowing that you had the gall to correct me when it came to what my kids could and could not do" My "know it all attitude" is based on seventeen years of living with learning disabilities (possibly all of the ones I listed, at least three.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: BannaOJ, No, I would not agree that my curriculum is more difficult than the average child can handle at that age, although it is certainly more difficult than the average child is asked to handle at that age.
Back it up or admit you're wrong. I have taught close to two thousand children, and I say you're mistaken. Now explain why I'm wrong, and try to do it without insulting me. Refer freely to your experience, if you have any, and your research, if you've done any, and your education courses, if you've taken any. Don't say that I am insulting orbullying you by demanding that you back up your belief. Just back it up or admit that you have no backing, that it's just a gut feeling, and let people come to their own conclusions. (FWIW, I have seen people say, "I can't refute your evidence. I just disagree for instinctive reasons." In fact, I think I've done it myself at least once. But don't fail to back up your assertions, and then whine about not having your opinion treated with enough respect.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Tom, all true learning disabilities that I know (dyslexia, dysgrapia, dysphasia, dyscalcaculia and dyspraxia) are roughly equal in severity, but affect different aspects. (The exception would by dysphasia, which, uncorrected, may cause problems in nearly all areas of life, but less significantly so than being deaf.)
They're not even equal in severity within themselves. Not all dyslexics have it to the same degree. And between each other, they are not "equal," what they are, possibly, is "un-comparable."
-o-
quote: My "know it all attitude" is based on seventeen years of living with learning disabilities (possibly all of the ones I listed, at least three.)
Is it possible that your seventeen years of living with learning disabilities doesn't make you an expert on all learning disabilities?
Incidentally, why don't you know which learning disabilities you have? Have you been diagnosed by a doctor? With which ones?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simple, all of those courses have been taught to average children at one point or another, generaly at the same time, many are still being taught at some schools in the U.S. and Europe. These were not experiments, but the standard of education in Western Europe and the Eastern United States for arround half a millenium. While most students did not attend school, the choice of who did was decidedly not based on intellect, as many of those aristocrats were thick as boards.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Incidentally, why don't you know which learning disabilities you have? Have you been diagnosed by a doctor? With which ones?" By several doctors, none of whom agreed. Dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyspraxia are all almost certainly present, each apparently quite severe. (In find it hard to believe that I was the most dyslexic child ever seen by the specialist in learning disabilities, as I know read better than most of his "less dyslexic" students, but I see evidence of my dyslexia in my poor spelling and of dysgraphia and dyspraxia when ever I write or run. I was very happy to lear that Asimov was dyspraxic, apparently more so than I am becouse he couldn't learn to swim.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Icarus, doubtless, but intellegence, which is what matters, was not one of them. I realize that familial concerns play a huge part in education, and that a change in curriculum would have to be accompinied by other changes as well (better school lunches, and I am interested in the results of expirements done with boarding magnet schools for inner-city teens.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:that list was taken from Wikipedia, which, in turn, took it from the U.S. government, that list is as official as they get
The list on Wikipedia starts with the phrase: "some of them are as follows..."
Some, i.e. not an exclusive list.
Moreover, nowhere in that list does a single entry indicate that each disability is of equivalent seriousness.
And nowhere does it suggest that people are equally affected by these disabilities. I have around eight dyslexic friends. Six of them are highly functional; one is pretty much illiterate. One of them can read pretty much anything that someone else writes, but has a curious blind spot in that he cannot read anything he writes but can read anything he types. (This made, by the way, playing D&D with him while growing up very fun: "Tom, can you tell me what's on my character sheet?" "That's a +2 dagger." "Oh. I didn't think I was wielding a cauliflower.")
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
But even though I come firmly down on the side of educational freedom there still are some minimum standards of exposure. I passed a college freshman english course at 15, which was equivalent proof as far as the universities are concerned, that it didn't matter whether I'd had 4 years of English or not.
But I still don't think that the average child can do the curriculum you propose. Maybe it is possible, with a very low teacher to student ratio, as existed in the case of the board thick aristocrats and their paid tutors, yet I doubt it.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: OJ, average here = IQ of 100.
Icarus, doubtless, but intellegence, which is what matters, was not one of them. I realize that familial concerns play a huge part in education, and that a change in curriculum would have to be accompinied by other changes as well (better school lunches, and I am interested in the results of expirements done with boarding magnet schools for inner-city teens.)
Actually, based on the studies I have read, IQ is defintely affected by environment, which is affected by money. For example, what foods I eat right now can shift IQ (I am pregnant), which is why my husband keeps pushing shrimp on me. Even the date of birth can matter if it affects what grade the kid can drop out at. Parenting sites love to list how you can and can't raise kids IQ.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel, thank you for not addressing or recognizing anything in my last post - designed and written expressly to address the comment you made that you "didn't know what I was getting at."
quote:Tom, that list was taken from Wikipedia, which, in turn, took it from the U.S. government, that list is as official as they get.
Again, this is dismissive. You chose one tertiary source (a highly questionable one), and implied that it correctly reflected information from a secondary source (the umbrella "US Government" sans any sort of official study or bill or other title).
And after you chose this one source, you refused to look at any other sources - namely the several I linked to in an effort to inform you about the nature of learning and developmental disabilities found in our nation's schools.
After refusing to look at new source material, you stubbornly cling to your previous (and incorrect) assertion about how learning disabilities (still completely ignorant of developmental disabilities) are limited in scope and can be overcome by all.
This is intellectually dishonest, to yourself and to your audience. It is akin to making a claim that the Greeks only had access to certain types of weapons, then ignoring evidence discovered to the contrary when presented to you.
THIS is one reason why many people find you frustrating.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FlyingCow, the use of tertiary sources, and of Wikipedia in particular, is par for the course.
"still completely ignorant of developmental disabilities" I am unfamiliar with the term. I could guess at its meaning, but I dare not risk it.
". Maybe it is possible, with a very low teacher to student ratio, as existed in the case of the board thick aristocrats and their paid tutors" Not that low, one teacher to every ten or fifteen students should work, although one to every five would be ideal.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One teacher to five pupils would be ideal. Sign me up.
We would have to drastically change our tax structure, though. We'd need at least six or seven times as much funding as we currently have for education. I personally could not afford to pay more in taxes, but maybe we could cut funding to something else.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
. . . but let me try to put this as gently as I can . . . have you looked at those realities?
Because a lot of our objections to you are rooted in those realities. The reality than we will not double, let alone quintuple, the funding for education. The reality that you would not be able to find enough qualified school teachers for your proposed system, anywhere in the country. This is what people are objecting to. They're saying "This is not realistic, because of _____ reality that you have not accounted for." And rather than giving compelling arguments why it is, or acknowledging that this is just your science fiction dream of what education could be, you're crying about what a victim you are.
(It's kind of like when people talk of paying teachers like professionals. It's a nice idea; I'm all for it. But it's not a reality. It won't happen anytime soon, for a lot of reasons.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: FlyingCow, the use of tertiary sources, and of Wikipedia in particular, is par for the course.
I don't know about anyone else here, but the last time I had to do research for something in an academic environment, Wikipedia was completely unacceptable.
I'm not saying that Hatrack requires the utmost in research. I'm just saying that Hatrackers are not the only ones who don't think WIkipedia is all that reliable. So no, using Wikipedia is not par for the course. When it comes to that particular subject, you could've found far more just Googling the term.
posted
pH, on Hatrack, and on the other forum I have posted at, Wikipedia was by far the most common source (and rumours of its lack of reliability are generaly exagerated).
Icarus, I think it is a given that educational spending in this country does need to be increased exponitaly. I have ideas on how to do this, most of which do not involve raising taxes, but, with the exception of cutting pork spending and spending on Congressmen's offices, I do not think my suggestions would be very popular (massive slash on military spending, especialy ending cold-war era projects, would be a place to start.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I carry biases from Ornery, were Wikipedia was the only source agreed not to be partisan.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering Wikipedia went through about forty revisions the day Kenneth Lay went underground (figuratively or literally; the jury's still out), it's hard to accept a source that's so fluid and can be modified at any time by anyone.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has, according to Nature, only one more error per article than Britannica on average, and with many more articles of much greater length and depth. I think you may underestimate how seriously Wikipedians take their work and how hard the strive to make it accurate and informative. Wikipedia has great potential, not just as an encyclopedia but as a new medium for a new age. Never before have so many people from so many different backgrounds, in almost every country, worked together to produce such a product, and they do it through direct democracy based not on blind ballots but on open arguments. Have you read our discussion pages? The color of the world is changing.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Pel, read your last post for relevance and factual accuracy and ask yourself a few questions. Do you know enough about the study to cite it? Do you realize that "only one more error per article than Britannica on average" doesn't make sense since we don't know how large the set is? When you say "in almost every country," do you really have in mind the vastness of this world?
It's a matter of sloppiness, but since what you are talking about is as important as education, I think that it would serve your cause better, though it may be a blow to your ego, to go at this with a little more humility.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Although I think Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and I contribute to a couple of pages, I would never, ever, ever use it directly for an essay/paper. Background, yes- it is perfect for getting the language and a basic understanding of a subject. The Wiki Documents or whatever they are called, maybe. But for information on an essay? No. never.
Of course, I would probably not use the Britannica either.
Both are tertiary sources that are highly restricted in most of the classes I attend. Usually at my University it is stipulated you use only one or two, probably for basic facts that don't quite fall under the common-knowledge umbrella.
Internet tertiary sources are less reliable than paper tertiary sources, regardless of how many people edit them. In many cases they are less than tertiary and that's just not good enough in academic essays or papers. Primary or secondary only- I would only use primary sources (official sites and the like) on the internet unless the secondary source had the credibility of a journal or was a part of a published book or something.
Wikipedia looks very bad on a bibliography. I would never put it on there unless I had no other choice and I was sure it was right. Most professors I have, if not explictly banned Wikipedia, have given off the kind of vibe that says "Wikipedia is innapropriate in my class room." TAs are not so squeamish about their views. "Don't use Wikipedia," they say.
Besides, it looks very lazy. Compared to the depth of information you can get from a proper book, journal or primary source, it is fractional. In fact, I mostly don't use Wikipedia because it simply does not provide enough information. Usually on a single research essay I might read fifteen books (on a fifteen page paper) and a couple of primary-source websites.
By that time, Wikipedia's a drop in the bucket.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
And, yes Wikipedia does have contributors from almost every country, although devaloped countries are, naturaly, vastly over-repsented. There are Wikipedias in Zulu, Mongolian, Armenian and Basque.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:(It's kind of like when people talk of paying teachers like professionals. It's a nice idea; I'm all for it. But it's not a reality. It won't happen anytime soon, for a lot of reasons.)
I'm interested in your reasons for why it won't happen. I can think of a few off the top of my head, but I think you, having direct experience as a teacher, might have some insights I lack on the subject (Sorry, I couldn't resist ).
Pelegius, Why do you think spending needs to be increased exponentially here? We already spend way more per student than just about every other country out there, including the ones that outperform us on the academic tests all the time. I agree that our system needs work, but throwing more money at the problem hasn't seemed to work out that well so far, what makes you think it will in the future?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kamisaki, money, intelligently spent, is needed. Firstly, in no particular order, to increase salaries of teachers to an appropriate level (I cannot tell you how many people, extremely smart people, have told me that they would teach if they did not have a family to support. Yes, their logic is slightly flawed and their life philosophy may need to be addressed, but they do have a point.) Secondly, we need better supplies, including new buildings. (Even in wealthy districts, schools are depressing, which is hardly the best atmosphere for learning.) Finally, to hire more teachers.
Because we can do this, because we have the money to do so, in fact.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you may underestimate how seriously Wikipedians take their work and how hard the strive to make it accurate and informative.
Whether or not Wikipedia is a good source, the fact remains that your source doesn't say what you think it does, Pel.
Essential to your argument are the following assertions:
1) That the disabilities listed on Wikipedia are the only learning disabilities which exist. As the list starts with the word "some," it's clear that this list is meant to be a sampling. Moreover, spending even a few moments with any other source on learning disabilities makes it clear that other disabilities not only exist but are recognized by the government.
2) That the disabilities you've listed are all equal in severity. Nowhere on Wikipedia or in the documentation cited on Wikipedia is this suggested.
3) That all disabilities are equally severe for all individuals. Again, nowhere is this cited, and counter-evidence has already been submitted on this thread.
So whether or not Wikipedia is a good source of information, it is not providing the information you need to support your claims.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
).![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
.
