Yes. My daughter got "A"s at GCSE physics, maths and chemistry without understanding how a logarithmic scale worked - and didn't believe me when I told her I had learned it in junior school.
Are there really people this uneducated?
- Thread starter owsnap
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Eric The Viking
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 6,599
- Reaction score
- 74
I proof-read some of a daughter's university essays for her. Some of the poor-quality thought expressed by the sources she quoted was shocking. Coming from an engineering background (although I have an arts degree), the non sequiturs and arguments applying the specific to the general horrified me.
Yet these are literally the sociologists (or similar) teaching the teachers. She was doing an education degree.
Normally Prof. Laurie Taylor gets right up my nose (correction: L.T. ALWAYS gets up my nose), but I heard yesterday's discussion on "rentier capitalism*" on the bus going home and it was fascinating. Per normal, Prof. Taylor was unable to raise the discussion beyond two smartypants patting each other on the back, but the ideas of his guest, Prof. Guy Standing of SOAS, were very interesting, regarding the global impoverishment of labour.
Point (extrapolated by me) being that in times past, basic education done well--literacy and numeracy, primarily--was highly regarded, as it genuinely contributed to an individual's wellbeing and ability to create wealth. Not so now.
Prof. Standing's point was that capital (i.e. ownership of resources) now accrues wealth far more than skill does, and that the disparity is increasing. As I said, Taylor didn't attempt to point out some obvious & huge problems with this statement, for example the historically lowest interest rates ever, but it does have some feel of truth about it, and would help explain why schoolchildren's heads are being filled with rubbish at the expense of rigour in the fundamentals.
Have a listen and see what you think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07x5vs1.
E.
*Marxist term. Taylor loves Marxism (which encourages me to despise him more than I did**), but even so Marx has some value, sociologically speaking.
**ambiguity intentional.
Yet these are literally the sociologists (or similar) teaching the teachers. She was doing an education degree.
Normally Prof. Laurie Taylor gets right up my nose (correction: L.T. ALWAYS gets up my nose), but I heard yesterday's discussion on "rentier capitalism*" on the bus going home and it was fascinating. Per normal, Prof. Taylor was unable to raise the discussion beyond two smartypants patting each other on the back, but the ideas of his guest, Prof. Guy Standing of SOAS, were very interesting, regarding the global impoverishment of labour.
Point (extrapolated by me) being that in times past, basic education done well--literacy and numeracy, primarily--was highly regarded, as it genuinely contributed to an individual's wellbeing and ability to create wealth. Not so now.
Prof. Standing's point was that capital (i.e. ownership of resources) now accrues wealth far more than skill does, and that the disparity is increasing. As I said, Taylor didn't attempt to point out some obvious & huge problems with this statement, for example the historically lowest interest rates ever, but it does have some feel of truth about it, and would help explain why schoolchildren's heads are being filled with rubbish at the expense of rigour in the fundamentals.
Have a listen and see what you think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07x5vs1.
E.
*Marxist term. Taylor loves Marxism (which encourages me to despise him more than I did**), but even so Marx has some value, sociologically speaking.
**ambiguity intentional.
lurker
Le dullard de la commune
When I was in Infant school/ junior school, we were taught "base 10" using blocks of beech wood
"units, longs, flats & blocks" does anyone remember these ?
"units, longs, flats & blocks" does anyone remember these ?
Eric The Viking
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 6,599
- Reaction score
- 74
Yes 
Worked for me, too.
Worked for me, too.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
It's down to free-market neo-liberal economics and the complete failure of the very silly 'trickle down" theory.Eric The Viking":23zbyaci said:
Aided by anti union legislation - low-paid workers have little or no negotiating power and are not protected by much legislation, nor sufficiently buffered by the welfare system.
Accelerated by mechanisation and the de-skilling of work (not a new phenomenon - has been going on since the industrial revolution).
The crude answer is to redistribute wealth - tax and spend - invest in human capital - invest in infrastructure (especially housing currently).
If people are un-educated then blame the government and Department of Education. It'll get worse if they bring back grammar schools - a large number (Secondary Modern or new equivalent) will get lower quality education.
If maths is unused then of course it gets forgotten - just like anything else.
What amazes me is the number of people who make things (especially woodworkers :shock: ) but are completely flummoxed by very basic geometry and would rather calculate (with a calculator - log tables are redundant) instead of using compass, straight edge, dividers etc. A lot can't even work out how to pitch something at 30º and would rather use a jig! :lol:
PS anybody who either "loves" or "hates" Marx, has misunderstood him entirely!
DiscoStu
Established Member
I once ran a big scout even and had a major argument with someone because they insisted there area was too small we had used a figure to calculate space and say it was 10 scouts to 5m sqr he was saying he should have 10m X 10m as he had 20 scouts and therefore needed double the room. I could not explain that 10m sqr was 4 times the size of 5m sqr.
In the end I drew a diagram. I still think he though I did something to trick him!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the end I drew a diagram. I still think he though I did something to trick him!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RogerS
Established Member
Jacob":1szm1l0a said:
Yawn......
lurker
Le dullard de la commune
lurker":3mcegxdp said:
This also taught you about area (flats) and volume (blocks).
I often wonder if my teacher of 55 years ago would be pleased if they knew I mentally still visualise in those terms whilst calculating safety aspects of safe storage of fissile wastes?
beech1948
Established Member
Maths Grad here, 68 yrs, upper first, whoohooo.
When I look at Britain I see that 40% are skilled and committed, 40% pretend to be knowledgeable and 20% are chaotic no nothings. I see less efficiency than is needed and that 50% of the people I deal with in business have no idea of how to run a business to deliver on time, quality and cost. I run my business by also running my contracts with 6 others suppliers for their owners....its rubbish.
What is becoming more interesting as I age is that the 1960's skilled trades could run rings round todays grads in maths, application of logic to solve problems and really kept much of the UK functioning and all without computers only a stubby pencil and a notebook.
I now teach math to those who are serious about it. I don't tutor to raise grades I teach only grad level students.
Math is the only common language which exists across the globe. Solutions using math are always clear and relatively easy to implement.
Pupils today are being taught by the ignorant. Teacher training colleges will accept students with 1 A level..what????
PE staff are asked to fill in and teach other subjects..what??????. Why do we not accept that only grads with very good grades are allowed to teach there is actually no shortage of them.
A change would start with insisting on directing grads into teaching jobs until we have an all graduate teaching workforce with no Teacher Training College diplomas allowed. Forgive student debt to create the best types of teacher. It would be worth it.
A return to the syllabus used in the 1960's would be a serious shock to today's pupils and teachers as to level of learning and discipline but that is what the UK desperately needs.
Teaching? Class sizes are now averaging 32 when in the 60's they averaged 28, achieved grades of A to C are applauded but the rest are ignored as useless also rans why is this waste of talent allowed. Most work today does not require a degree as a start point so why do we let kids waste their time, money and acquire debts to go to uni for a worthless degree in say Football...why? Grades D to F(ail) are given no real suitable training. The Dept of Educations annual published statistics show that 23% of all pupils are illiterate and unable to read and comprehend in any meaningful way. 24% are innumerate and unable to handle numbers at all.
I hope that the best case is that these are the same pupils but worry that its actually 47% (23% + 24%) who are both illiterate and innumerate. How is it possible that today we can not teach a child to see a numer, recognise its value and add, divide,multiply and subtract...how is it even possible???
Teachers whine about money. As you do if you have no idea of the job you are doing yet defend methods now proven to be unsuitable. What go back to primary schools teaching times tables by rote....oh no far to uncool. Until Chinese children are compared to ours and run all over us in maths due to their Victorian teaching methods....just amazing....our teachers talk a good game but any real understanding about how pupils learn, how to motivate, how to drive the pupil towards higher standards. Poor poor teachers; we actually expect them to perform. How sad is that.
Time to sack the 1960/1970 diploma trained teachers and move on.
Over and out. Back to teaching my grandson (14) about Adiabatic Expansion and Log Scales and pattern analysis.
When I look at Britain I see that 40% are skilled and committed, 40% pretend to be knowledgeable and 20% are chaotic no nothings. I see less efficiency than is needed and that 50% of the people I deal with in business have no idea of how to run a business to deliver on time, quality and cost. I run my business by also running my contracts with 6 others suppliers for their owners....its rubbish.
What is becoming more interesting as I age is that the 1960's skilled trades could run rings round todays grads in maths, application of logic to solve problems and really kept much of the UK functioning and all without computers only a stubby pencil and a notebook.
I now teach math to those who are serious about it. I don't tutor to raise grades I teach only grad level students.
Math is the only common language which exists across the globe. Solutions using math are always clear and relatively easy to implement.
Pupils today are being taught by the ignorant. Teacher training colleges will accept students with 1 A level..what????
PE staff are asked to fill in and teach other subjects..what??????. Why do we not accept that only grads with very good grades are allowed to teach there is actually no shortage of them.
A change would start with insisting on directing grads into teaching jobs until we have an all graduate teaching workforce with no Teacher Training College diplomas allowed. Forgive student debt to create the best types of teacher. It would be worth it.
A return to the syllabus used in the 1960's would be a serious shock to today's pupils and teachers as to level of learning and discipline but that is what the UK desperately needs.
Teaching? Class sizes are now averaging 32 when in the 60's they averaged 28, achieved grades of A to C are applauded but the rest are ignored as useless also rans why is this waste of talent allowed. Most work today does not require a degree as a start point so why do we let kids waste their time, money and acquire debts to go to uni for a worthless degree in say Football...why? Grades D to F(ail) are given no real suitable training. The Dept of Educations annual published statistics show that 23% of all pupils are illiterate and unable to read and comprehend in any meaningful way. 24% are innumerate and unable to handle numbers at all.
I hope that the best case is that these are the same pupils but worry that its actually 47% (23% + 24%) who are both illiterate and innumerate. How is it possible that today we can not teach a child to see a numer, recognise its value and add, divide,multiply and subtract...how is it even possible???
Teachers whine about money. As you do if you have no idea of the job you are doing yet defend methods now proven to be unsuitable. What go back to primary schools teaching times tables by rote....oh no far to uncool. Until Chinese children are compared to ours and run all over us in maths due to their Victorian teaching methods....just amazing....our teachers talk a good game but any real understanding about how pupils learn, how to motivate, how to drive the pupil towards higher standards. Poor poor teachers; we actually expect them to perform. How sad is that.
Time to sack the 1960/1970 diploma trained teachers and move on.
Over and out. Back to teaching my grandson (14) about Adiabatic Expansion and Log Scales and pattern analysis.
lurker
Le dullard de la commune
Hope you feel better for that Beech :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Too easy to blame teachers (or anybody) and just leave it at that. A very modern cop-out.beech1948":2zj6peaw said:
In fact it's the Dept of Ed who are responsible - and curricula are more tightly controlled and regulated nowadays than they ever were - with massive amounts of assessment and paper work. Ask any teacher - and it's not about money either.
My grandson is learning maths in a fairly traditional way - things haven't changed that much, except for the addition of "new" maths - which is more of a problem for the parents than the kids - hence a lot of the moaning about how things ain't what they used to be! :lol:
RogerS
Established Member
1. Teaching Math In 1950s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?
2. Teaching Math In 1960s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?
2. Teaching Math In 1960s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)
RogerS
Established Member
Jacob":1iftvcqc said:
What was wrong with 'old' maths? Why do we need 'New' maths ? Especially if they can't work out the area of a room.
And Beech, it's not all bad news, thankfully. At least the Govt has seen some sense. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36772954
RobinBHM
Established Member
I remember my first week of my degree course (furniture production and management), our lecturer gave the class a simple maths test to do, to see what he needed to teach.
Some of the questions were using a mixture of + - x divide () and fractions which everybody got wrong (including me!).
The lecturer said, do none of you remember BODMAS?......eh? we'd never heard of it, it doesnt seem to be taught these days.
Some of the questions were using a mixture of + - x divide () and fractions which everybody got wrong (including me!).
The lecturer said, do none of you remember BODMAS?......eh? we'd never heard of it, it doesnt seem to be taught these days.
RogerS
Established Member
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
It certainly is taught nowadays and quite early on too, otherwise you wouldn't be able to do some quite simple maths. iRobinBHM":399uydd4 said:
It sounds more like basic Maths wasn't a prerequisite for your course and you happened to be in a very innumerate crew!
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Yes but you are only getting 2 mark on the 2nd paper - which means there are another 98 marks to pick up in the rest of the exam (assuming 100 marks available - 50 more pages of same level of difficulty?) whereas the 1st paper is the whole shebang. Different styles of teaching the same stuff.RogerS":234ws7g2 said:I think this kind of proves your point, Beech.
A paper from 1960
and from 2016
I take it you'd have no problem with the 2nd paper Roger, if standards really have fallen so low?
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Nobody uses logs anymore (unless they have to) so they aren't taught. Calculators are far more efficient and precise. But they'd soon get the logs idea if calculators and computers all packed up.phil.p":2eiaxj7a said:
Similarly nobody uses a sextant or sight reduction tables any more for navigation, unless they have to.
beech1948
Established Member
Jacob,
I made no mention of blame. I only work in terms of achievement and capability to do the work needed.
Fascinating to read through the scannned pages of a maths exam.
Log Scales are seldom used today due to calculators taking over I agree but one should at least understand the concept.
As to sextants well I use mine each week, I do enjoy the calculations being done by "hand" but I do have a full electronic nav system with radar to back up my calcs.
Better safe than sorry.
I made no mention of blame. I only work in terms of achievement and capability to do the work needed.
Fascinating to read through the scannned pages of a maths exam.
Log Scales are seldom used today due to calculators taking over I agree but one should at least understand the concept.
As to sextants well I use mine each week, I do enjoy the calculations being done by "hand" but I do have a full electronic nav system with radar to back up my calcs.
Better safe than sorry.
Similar threads
