From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Prop 48...
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:33:35 GMT
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <55442@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> rsmith@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Russ Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.234739.69078@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>and their education suffers.  This is not to be interpreted as a reflection
>>on their intelligence, as I think it is everybit as high as "white middle
>>americans", but intelligence and education are seldom the same thing.
>
>
>This is a very good point which needed to be made, the SAT does not purport
>to measure "intelligence", only the aptitude of a potential college student
>to perform in college. Some people can't take tests, this makes them score
>lower than they should since most classes involve taking tests, but there
>really is no better way to measure scholastic aptitude, or at least we 
>haven't found a better way.
>
>I would define intelligence as ability to learn, which I wouldn't equate
>with success on the SAT or even necessarily in college. I had no trouble
>memorizing all the complex stuff in astronomy when I took it in JC, but
>I couldn't define a parsec now because I don't use it. I didn't learn
>in that class, I memorized, which IMHO is whats wrong with our educational
>system(or at least the one I experienced), they don't promote learning,
>they promote regurgitating material.
>
>
>Russ Smith

Here Here!!!  Exactly..  Imagination and comprehension is so key to true
"learning".  In most cases, our modern educational system provides more 
information and a greater amount of knowledge to be learned than probably
anywhere in the world.  However, seldom do the classes stress understanding
and imagination/creativity.  We are taught the formulas that are important,
how/when/where to apply them, and the results we get.  We are seldom allowed
to think/imagine/create ideas of our own.  Probably one of the most 
rewarding classes I took in school was one in creative literature where the
teacher gave no tests, did not "grade" anyone, and only required 3 things
in his class to get an A. 1) you attended all classes.  2) you read the 
required material and gave your interpretation of it. and 3) that you supported
you interpretation.   There were no "right" or "wrong" answers...  The answers,
if properly supported, were all right.  It challenged people to think things
through, to understand, and most of all, to be able to support what they
concluded.  The only penalties were not thinking about something.  I also had
a class that dealt in computer engineering design.  Instead of being told that
we had to write a C program using doubly-linked lists and implementing fifos
to solve this equation, we were given an outline of a problem and told to
come up with solution.  In some cases, students came up with viable solutions
that involved minimal programming, where others involved heavy programming.
The students were taught to think and create, not regurgitate...

But anyway...


-- 
David T. Meeks                    ||" We are jigsaw pieces, aligned on the 
VMark Software, Inc.              ||  perimeter edge, 
uvmark!davem@merk.com             ||  interlocked through a missing piece"
davem%uvmark@merk.com             ||" ...This world is totally Fugazi"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college