Have you ever flunked a course or an exam?
...
Have you?
What made you think of that? Me, fail a course?
It's a simple, innocent question, you know...
Your question says more about what you think about me than anything else.
Hmm, I'd say your defensiveness implies something.
Why do we have to talk about school performance?
Isn't there a subject that interested you before signing up for a class, but not once it started? Or, one that suddenly turned intriguing with the arrival of a new instructor? Think about the courses that you loved. Didn't you have great instructors for those?
Let me see... When I liked the instructor, I was more motivated to study that subject, that's true. When I hated the teacher, that feeling affected my general view of the field that s/he taught.
You see? I wasn't trying to tell you that I have some doubt about your intellectual capability. Rather, it's about how much the quality of instruction matters in our learning.
That sounds obvious.
It does. But we tend to blame the students more than justified.
You mean if I did badly in, say, a course in history of wigs, that's because the instructor wasn't good?
Yes, you failed in that course because your teacher did not succeed in arousing your curiosity and convince you that the pain necessary to understand the subject is well worth it.
Let me clear about one thing, though. I never received an F or a 0 in my life!
What about a C+ or a 1?
I understand the difference between A+ and A, or 20 and 19, but I always wondered if it makes any sense to distinguish C+ from C, or 1 from 0.
Let me repeat, if you did not do well in a course, the instructor is to blame.
Are you sure about putting the entire responsibility on the instructor?
Okay, I concede that nobody can present anything that captivates all thirty novices at a time.
The smaller the class size is, the better the instruction could be.
The more the students are alike, the easier it is, too. A scene from a movie that I saw on TV as a child must have shaped my view about education. It was about teaching four or five illiterate teenagers who are gangsters of sorts. The teacher succeeds in getting them interested by choosing the right reading material.
Something about drug trafficking?
Close. He chose erotica.
You have been influenced by strange movies...
Have you ever thought about the negative effects of politics among the students in a class?
How do you engage in politics when you are sitting there to get a better grade?
Most of us try to make life difficult for students who does exceptionally well, all in defense of ourselves.
We call them names, snatch away their thick glasses, exclude them from our fun activities, sneer when they manage to answer difficult questions...
Yes, we do our best so that we do not look that bad in comparison with that irritatingly smart student. If you are not bright, but not ready to make the smart ones miserable, you feel miserable yourself.
Plus, when you get to high school, there's that peer pressure to be bad...
I didn't think about all such negative effects of being taught in a class of twenty or more, until recently. I had simply accepted it as fact of life. But it occurred to me that it comes with democracy.
What has democracy got to do with education in a classroom of twenty?
Democratization of education. I am beginning to understand its downside.
In other words, you think it was better when good and higher education was only for the privileged?
I happened to have the opportunity to receive one-on-one instruction for two weeks, seven hours per day. When I found out how effective it was, I was flabbergasted.
Give me the phone number of the psychiatric ward where your instructor ended up after teaching you. I know we have a lot to talk, if s/he is up to that, of course.
She may have suffered, but I absolutely loved it. It was geared to my pace, and only mine. If there was anything I didn't understand, it was explained until I understood it well. If I was interested in something not in the instruction plan of the day, the plan was changed to accommodate my curiosity. And after a few days, I realized there was nobody throwing paper balls at me or giving me dirty looks, just a smiling and encouraging instructor in front of me.
You weren't bothered by other students far smarter than you are, you mean.
I learned as much as I wanted and what I wanted. I tell you, it was heaven.
The instructor must have been extremely patient, competent, mature, and...
Yes, yes, all of that. Another important attribute of an instructor is to be altruistic. Teaching is about passing on knowledge and skills that you own. If the instructor feels intimidated by or jealous about a smart student, or contemptuous of a not-so-bright student, education would not be effective.
Or, if s/he does not recognize a gifted student as such, as was the case with Thomas Edison and many others. We need saints as instructors.
I am now a believer of education in the aristocratic tradition. Consider two cases. One, a farmer's daughter who is smart, but does not have access to formal education. Another, equally smart Count's son whose father employs a private tutor for him.
Better yet, a different tutor for each subject, all of whom are well versed in the field they teach.
Further suppose that the Count links the tutors' remuneration to how well the son is learning and how happy he is.
We also have to suppose that the kid is keen to learn.
That, too.
Under such conditions, we shouldn't be surprised if the Count's son turns out to be a Charles Darwin and the equally smart farmer's daughter dies as a farmer and gets buried by an unmarked tombstone.
Exactly. It's the access to good instruction that matters, not the innate capability.
I think there are hopeless cases, though. But putting that aside, it means we should not be hooting about democratization of education.
That wasn't my proposal. It's just that...
I know what you're thinking! If you had been born a bit earlier, you're sure you would be the Count's son, not the farmer's daughter, to become a Leonardo da Vinci or a Charles Darwin or...
I can't deny that it's a very attractive perspective. Think about having a walk every morning in your garden, well tended by the gardeners for the estate, to discuss philosophy with a private tutor. The topic could be the nature of mathematical truths. I role-play Ludwig Wittgenstein while the tutor takes the position of Bertrand Russell. All that at the tender age of six...
Have you realized that the possibility is much larger to be born as a farmer's daughter than as a Count's son?
Or the possibility of being born with great ambition, but no talent to match?
...
Have you?
What made you think of that? Me, fail a course?
It's a simple, innocent question, you know...
Your question says more about what you think about me than anything else.
Hmm, I'd say your defensiveness implies something.
Why do we have to talk about school performance?
Isn't there a subject that interested you before signing up for a class, but not once it started? Or, one that suddenly turned intriguing with the arrival of a new instructor? Think about the courses that you loved. Didn't you have great instructors for those?
Let me see... When I liked the instructor, I was more motivated to study that subject, that's true. When I hated the teacher, that feeling affected my general view of the field that s/he taught.
You see? I wasn't trying to tell you that I have some doubt about your intellectual capability. Rather, it's about how much the quality of instruction matters in our learning.
That sounds obvious.
It does. But we tend to blame the students more than justified.
You mean if I did badly in, say, a course in history of wigs, that's because the instructor wasn't good?
Yes, you failed in that course because your teacher did not succeed in arousing your curiosity and convince you that the pain necessary to understand the subject is well worth it.
Let me clear about one thing, though. I never received an F or a 0 in my life!
What about a C+ or a 1?
I understand the difference between A+ and A, or 20 and 19, but I always wondered if it makes any sense to distinguish C+ from C, or 1 from 0.
Let me repeat, if you did not do well in a course, the instructor is to blame.
Are you sure about putting the entire responsibility on the instructor?
Okay, I concede that nobody can present anything that captivates all thirty novices at a time.
The smaller the class size is, the better the instruction could be.
The more the students are alike, the easier it is, too. A scene from a movie that I saw on TV as a child must have shaped my view about education. It was about teaching four or five illiterate teenagers who are gangsters of sorts. The teacher succeeds in getting them interested by choosing the right reading material.
Something about drug trafficking?
Close. He chose erotica.
You have been influenced by strange movies...
Have you ever thought about the negative effects of politics among the students in a class?
How do you engage in politics when you are sitting there to get a better grade?
Most of us try to make life difficult for students who does exceptionally well, all in defense of ourselves.
We call them names, snatch away their thick glasses, exclude them from our fun activities, sneer when they manage to answer difficult questions...
Yes, we do our best so that we do not look that bad in comparison with that irritatingly smart student. If you are not bright, but not ready to make the smart ones miserable, you feel miserable yourself.
Plus, when you get to high school, there's that peer pressure to be bad...
I didn't think about all such negative effects of being taught in a class of twenty or more, until recently. I had simply accepted it as fact of life. But it occurred to me that it comes with democracy.
What has democracy got to do with education in a classroom of twenty?
Democratization of education. I am beginning to understand its downside.
In other words, you think it was better when good and higher education was only for the privileged?
I happened to have the opportunity to receive one-on-one instruction for two weeks, seven hours per day. When I found out how effective it was, I was flabbergasted.
Give me the phone number of the psychiatric ward where your instructor ended up after teaching you. I know we have a lot to talk, if s/he is up to that, of course.
She may have suffered, but I absolutely loved it. It was geared to my pace, and only mine. If there was anything I didn't understand, it was explained until I understood it well. If I was interested in something not in the instruction plan of the day, the plan was changed to accommodate my curiosity. And after a few days, I realized there was nobody throwing paper balls at me or giving me dirty looks, just a smiling and encouraging instructor in front of me.
You weren't bothered by other students far smarter than you are, you mean.
I learned as much as I wanted and what I wanted. I tell you, it was heaven.
The instructor must have been extremely patient, competent, mature, and...
Yes, yes, all of that. Another important attribute of an instructor is to be altruistic. Teaching is about passing on knowledge and skills that you own. If the instructor feels intimidated by or jealous about a smart student, or contemptuous of a not-so-bright student, education would not be effective.
Or, if s/he does not recognize a gifted student as such, as was the case with Thomas Edison and many others. We need saints as instructors.
I am now a believer of education in the aristocratic tradition. Consider two cases. One, a farmer's daughter who is smart, but does not have access to formal education. Another, equally smart Count's son whose father employs a private tutor for him.
Better yet, a different tutor for each subject, all of whom are well versed in the field they teach.
Further suppose that the Count links the tutors' remuneration to how well the son is learning and how happy he is.
We also have to suppose that the kid is keen to learn.
That, too.
Under such conditions, we shouldn't be surprised if the Count's son turns out to be a Charles Darwin and the equally smart farmer's daughter dies as a farmer and gets buried by an unmarked tombstone.
Exactly. It's the access to good instruction that matters, not the innate capability.
I think there are hopeless cases, though. But putting that aside, it means we should not be hooting about democratization of education.
That wasn't my proposal. It's just that...
I know what you're thinking! If you had been born a bit earlier, you're sure you would be the Count's son, not the farmer's daughter, to become a Leonardo da Vinci or a Charles Darwin or...
I can't deny that it's a very attractive perspective. Think about having a walk every morning in your garden, well tended by the gardeners for the estate, to discuss philosophy with a private tutor. The topic could be the nature of mathematical truths. I role-play Ludwig Wittgenstein while the tutor takes the position of Bertrand Russell. All that at the tender age of six...
Have you realized that the possibility is much larger to be born as a farmer's daughter than as a Count's son?
Or the possibility of being born with great ambition, but no talent to match?
Posts
