Second night in a row I've been in a place with lots of smoke around. Last night, at the bowling alley, I had trouble breathing a couple times. Tonight, at Buffalo Wild Wings for trivia night, it wasn't as bad, but it was still too much. I would be OK with a ban of smoking inside anywhere, though I don't believe that governments should have that power. Although, the old standard that your rights stop at my face (in relation to a thrown punch) would apply. I am being affected by something you would normally have the right to do, so it is the role of the government to control such action. As long as I like the result, the government can have the power; when I no longer like what the government is doing, the power shall be removed.
I got my new external enclosure for my extra hard drive today. I hope this one works better than the one Brent told me would work, then is too small. Computer expert, my foot. I may try to get that hard drive working tonight before I go to bed. It's not doing me any good in its present state.
I read an interesting article about the U.S.' math and science scores compared to those of other countries. The spread in the scores is higher between U.S. whites and blacks than between the U.S. and the leading country(ies). The article also talked about the way math and science are taught - mile wide, inch deep in the U.S. (essentially all topics are taught every year) versus teaching only a few topics each year. I'm open to discussion with this. Is it better to introduce all topics early on and (in theory) increase the depth of coverage each year or teach a few topics completely in each school year? As it stands, there are about 100 or so topics that must be taught in "lower" math (before high school, let's say). I like the idea of teaching fewer topics with more depth, assuming that's what you actually do. Our current system of social promotion doesn't support that as even possible, though. On the flip side, most of my readers here excelled at math through school. Would covering fewer topics bore you in class? I was usually bored in math class anyway, but was that because I'd mastered topic 23 three years before, but still had to cover it every year? What about the argument that we learn things much more quickly when younger, so introducing topics early will help us later on? Or that with the current system, one bad teacher doesn't screw you up as much since you cover the same things every year? I'm interested to see where this goes and if any changes actually help. Comments are open, feel free to discuss.
Mr. Blonde: Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?
More tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I was usually bored in math class too, but thats because after add, subtract, multiply, and divide I didn't know what the teacher was talking about. I think upper level math classes should be optional. Since high school I have seen one algebra equation and the answer is always the same: x = (sign name here). I am pretty sure the only trig I have ever used ends with an extra "ger." Just my ((((25-20)/5)x6)-4) cents. I think I did that right?
To Will, what I was reading dealt mostly with math below 8th grade level, but to take your point: why do we (as a society) feel that everyone deserves an equal level of education? Some people are good at math and should be encouraged to go on in that subject. Some people aren't, and yet are forced to continue to some arbitrary standard. Sure basic competency is a reasonable expectation, but I don't even use ALL the math I've needed to learn, and I chose a math-heavy field.
To Jennifer: The politicians in Memphis can't agree on anything, except maybe spending more tax dollars on projects they've been bribed to support. I don't know that it's about size as much as our completely ineffective mayor and city council.
Post a Comment