If you've done statistics, you know that B/V tradeoffs are more or less an unavoidable feature of optimization or learning. If you go in with less clear goals, you depend on learning on the fly to find the best solution which means your performance varies a lot depending on environmental conditions. If you go in with very clear goals, it's likely that people will cluster around them tightly, but if you're wrong with your bias, you'll be surely fucked.
How do you beat B/V tradeoffs? You put in more effort, more experience, better sharing of information. You select your biases very carefully such that they are less clear but cannot possibly be wrong. You constrain your variance such that it is less harmful to your task.
Finally, there's the idea of consistency and convergence rates. Consistency means that if any person spends enough time and effort they will eventually overcome both bias and variance and find the best solution. Rate of convergence is how much time and effort it takes to get reasonably close. Consistency and fast convergence are highly valuable properties, obviously, but both are easy to hurt and destroy, especially through biasing.
Any educational system where that is the goal is going to be fucked from the beginning...at least for anybody who agrees with Dewey's idea that the goal of education is to make better people.
A country that considers itself made up of consumers and workers rather than citizens, invites crap like SOPA, PATRIOT, and the TSA's shoe fetish.
Respectfully, I disagree.
The goal of a country is to allow her citizens to have "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
The problem with saying a country should have goals is that you can't get more than three people to agree on what to have for lunch, let alone millions upon millions to agree on goals, means and how to optimally achieve them.
"I noticed a recurring theme. Hackers would bring up anecdotes of playing around with BBC Micros in their spare time, learning C in their spare time or building basic command-line games in their spare time."
How do they think they are helping us children by stuffing us with hours upon hours of mindless work, following instructions on textbooks almost verbatim, whether it’s Computer Science or Math or Chemistry or Literature? Students are only allowed to interpret a literary work as the teachers see fit, only allowed to play with chemicals on paper in their own imagination, only given dull Math problems and a few certain “tricks” to solve them, and, yes, of course, only allowed to complete computer projects that involve Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, or Access. I don’t hate you, Bill Gates, but your office suite is killing me. There has to be change. Only the best of the best will be able teach him/herself the basics of IT while survivng high school (and K12 and higher education in general); the rest will just lose interests even though they have tremendous capabilities. Not to mention how it gets lonely once in a while.
There are schools that eschew the standardized, rote methods of learning. But they produce people like Cory Doctorow, who is a writer/speaker/etc. and doesn't produce anything terribly useful. Well, except for thoughts, books, etc. - things that do not follow measurable standards. But certainly no iPhones, yet.
We will have to flip the whole teaching scheme on it's head in order to sort this out, and it will be painful. Teachers will have to be valued more than engineers and politicians (since the teachers produce little engineers and politicians) and we'll actually have to trust them to know enough and do their job. Possibly even pay them more.
Until then, it's square pegs in round holes all around.
NOTE: I am not Cory Doctorow nor would I even know him if he laid a hard, sharp thought on me in a crowded room. But he did go to a liberal school in Canada.
I'd love to see a slew of articles that talk about different testing methods rather than all of the articles we see about different teaching methods. These articles are interesting, but are accompanied only by anecdotal evidence that the different methods are doing any good. It's not that they aren't, it's just that we can't measure it.
I think the main reason why students get lots of busywork is because it feels like diligent teaching, and it's relatively easy. Cynical of me, I suppose.
I highly recommend installing one of the many instapaper/readability extensions -- god knows with my ever-aging eyes I'm hitting that '~' key more and more often.
I used all of my high school "elective" blocks to attend a specialty school to study CIT (graduated high school A+ and NET+ certified!) and spent all of my free time doing IT consulting and building websites for clients. It taught me a TON, but I'm almost positive that if school was mentally fulfilling each day I probably would have just gone home and watched TV and socialized like everyone else.
It is strange, though, that while most most of the messages and predictions of dystopian/Cyberpunk novels and films tend to be vastly over-exaggerated, the underlying principals and ideas seem to have come true. One of the nearly universal themes tends to be an extremely bureaucratic and systematic world and when you compare most aspects of 21st century life to 50 years ago, it's a little frightening.
Moreover: You literally have the rest of your life to do paying work. Unless the alternative to going to work as a kid is hardship or hunger (which would be an even more regrettable problem) I see no sense in rushing into the workforce.
It would be nice if your school had been interesting enough to capture your attention with one of the hundreds of other subjects of possible study. One, perhaps, that is mind-expanding and awesome but which doesn't pay. Math and science. Art and music. History and philosophy. Languages and literature. Machine shop and robotics lab. Studying these things is what school is for. Building stuff for clients is what the remaining five or six decades of your working life are for.
I find it heartbreaking that the most interesting thing you found to do in your school days was to get a NET+ certification. Obviously, everyone's tastes are different, and details matter, but my first-order reaction is to regard that as a terrible failure of your environment.
So I guess to clarify, what I meant in my first comment was that school sucking helped me learn the one of most important skills around: self education.
In the past few years I've become interested in several subjects that I wouldn't have enjoyed in a classroom setting. My recent interests have been philosophy (specifically Stoic and Epicurean), tea, Javascript and Node.js, Redis and MongoDB, Japanese art and aesthetics, investing/finance, Guitar, and classical music.
I hated learning Visual Basic, for example, because my teacher was aweful. That's what you risk when you put your education in the hands of others. When you teach yourself a subject, the only person you have to blame is yourself if you don't learn it well.
I think it's important for parents to make sure that their kids have some time to do nothing, get bored, and find their own mischief and passions. It's a tough balancing act.
Sometimes I'd go check out what my father was doing in his workshop, and he'd show me how to use the tools or teach me the theories behind whatever he was working on (construction, metal work, electronics, magnetism, etc). It was up to me to decide if I was interested enough to try my own hand at it, and there was no fallout if I decided after starting that I wasn't interested after all.
As a result, we've grown up to be independent thinkers. We don't depend on other people to give our lives meaning or to give us structure. And most importantly, we're all very creative.
Kids will find things to be interested in so long as you don't smother them or stunt their independence.
Spot-on, at least in my experience. My parents pounded into me a piece of wisdom- "Boredom is a choice". It seems to have paid off.
It's really great to have them involved in things even if it's a lot of things. They'll tell you if they really don't like it. Don't confuse laziness or tiredness with disinterest, that's all. You never know if you did right until much later. All you can do is try what you think is best, hold your breath, and let the chips fall where they may.
A lot of times I think it all depends on the kid too. I was signed up for everything from swimming lessons to soccer to boy scouts and more before I even turned 1! That's right, before I was a year old! All things considered I turned out smart and productive.
My younger sister on the other hand wasn't very involved. My mom dragged her to girl scouts for a good 4 years or so and she hated it though it probably did her good. But she's great too! She's a straight A student coming up on graduating from Penn State in about a year.
So it's all just relative.
We should be working young people better.
Degeneration of K-12 education. College freshmen have to spend significant effort (up to 1-2 years on average I'd guess) just getting caught up to levels of basic mastery of reading, writing, logic, and mathematics that they should have had as a HS graduate.
Increasing concentration on volume of "material" rather than on level of mastery.
As the college loan bubble and the increasing reliance on a college degree as a necessary credential for most white collar work colleges have shifted towards becoming degree mills. More and more students are valuing the credential more than the knowledge, and they are pumping huge amounts of money into the system sustaining those values. This necessarily warps the institutions of higher education. And as they struggle with ways to soak up massive influxes of tuition without throwing their integrity out the window (or losing their accreditation) they've increasingly fallen back on volume and intensity of course work in lieu of demonstration of mastery of knowledge.
It's not a surprise that when the system is designed to turn humans into robots... that's what you get.
Anyone who comes out of school with useful skills does it despite school, not because of school.
John Taylor Gatto figured this out years ago.
For one, schools predate assembly lines. For another, if that is what schools were designed to do then they are remarkably poor at it. The ruling cabal who you seem to think is trying to push us all into servitude would surely have noticed and remedied the situation YEARS ago. Finally, you did read enough of the article to realise it was about the UK? What this Gatto person thinks is irrelevant.
As an adult who makes my own choices, I only work when I want to work, and I only meet deadlines which I set on my own accord. I imagine, given the context of this site, that a lot in the HN crowd are the same way. However, when you get out into the real world, most people do follow the same schedule and obey the same rules that were ingrained into them in school.
A lot of people do not even realize that they have choice. I have actually met people who look down upon me for not following the same 9-5 schedule that everyone else does, like it matters or something. I imagine that attitude comes from their upbringing by having it pushed upon them by educators.
I wouldn't go as far to say that the only reason for school is to shape people into obedient workers, but that element is definitely present.
Public school is just the latest version of obedience training.
I.e., do we have citations to some of Dewey's works, or the early 1900s academic reformers advocating this?
A proper education comes when you put pupils in a room with a very smart person and let them question him. He answers their questions and introduces them to new ideas. Pupils guide the learning, tutors are just a resource. There are no lesson plans.
This is how the great thinkers have learned and taught since the dawn of man. This is how the wealthy and in-the-know still educate themselves.
When public school was demanded, the educated upper class thought it abhorrent and dangerous to give poor children this kind of free-form, liberating education. They invented "public education" and modeled it after church education where students are preached to and rigidly controlled.
Church is a place where poor people go to be controlled. Public school extended this control programming to the formative years of all the children of the non-elite. Everything in public schools is optimized to create obedience, unthinking, conformity, rigidity.
Tell me one thing you learned from a lesson plan that did you any good. All the great thinkers, today and in the past, learned by directing themselves and (ideally) questioning smart people. Never by being whipped into doing lesson plans, always by following their creativity and doing investigations and self-directed projects.
And that one thing is genetically wired? As in their DNA was just 'Ballet Dancing' inclined?
The only reason people excel at something, is because they practice it.
Despite the environment, there are very few students with a "hacker" mentality- maybe ten or so, a number not drastically higher than what you'd expect to find anywhere else. Plenty of kids choose to take the upper level (from a high school perspective) classes, and have no trouble understanding recursion, pointers, or any of the traditional hangups, but it's a much smaller number who would ever consider working on a project that wasn't assigned by a teacher. For everyone else, even among these incredibly bright students, programming is seen as the work you have to sludge through in order to guarantee a cushy $120k job.
For this small percentage of self-motivated students, the free time proposed in the original post would be a godsend, used more productively than any sort of schoolwork. For most everyone else, however, regardless of intelligence, CS education, or resources available, this time would be thrown away to TV or video games, with a net productivity less than an hour spent doing the most menial busywork under the dullest of teachers. I think many of us on Hacker News, surrounded by peers who are the sort of people that start businesses, tend to forget that while students might spend lectures wishing they were elsewhere, that elsewhere is rarely 80x24.
Admittedly, I don't have a solution. Increased STEM funding helps, no doubt, but not in the exponential way many of us envision. Resources in the form of state of the art equipment or funding for student projects only serves to empower those who are already driven, and this drive seems to be something determined long before students enter high school.
We must shift the focus of education back to education. It is ridiculous to believe that a single letter can show how much work a student put in to learn the content. A "C" can be given to a student who puts in their best effort but just can't remember when to use a semi colleen. Yet an "A" can be given to a student who crams for the test the night before, yet can't think critically on any subject.
We must rethink our approach to education, and shift it back to education, rather than to that test at the end of the year.
Stuff worth knowing in academia takes dedicated effort and access to deep resources that are unavailable on the internet.
Even knowing what book to read can be a significant challenge.
Just cause you can read some tutorials, watch a MIT lecture, and write PHP/jQuery does not a computer scientist or a mathematician make.
He said he learned more in his first 8 months out of college, than he did in the the 4 years it took him to earn his degree.
We should be teaching critical thinking skills, then giving them tools and materials along with, most importantly, a problem to solve with a set of constraints. Now that is what creativity is all about. The article is from the UK point of view so I can't speak for them but in the States here we need something more like I described. And really, students aren't too overworked. They're just made to memorize and vomit up later useless facts for standardized tests instead of being taught critical thinking or problem solving skills.
Here, teachers get the short end of the stick. Especially the ones who are really passionate about teaching. I've got several friends and my mother who are all finishing up teaching degrees or have just started teaching and they tell me all the time that they aren't given the tools they need to properly teach their students.
Here we're teaching what used to be middle school math in the 50's in college. I'm not sure if overworked students is a problem. At least not in the U.S.
I think that's pretty close to what normal high school is like today. There are constant distractions for standardized testing, mandatory this-and-that, worry about your SAT scores, etc. And not enough sitting down to understand what this novel is really about. Or what an integral really is.
I think this explains both the subjective feeling that students are "overworked" and the objective truth that they aren't doing or learning nearly as much as was traditionally expected of students.
Its a combination of all of the little things added together. Worrying about coursework deadlines, conflicts between subjects, modular testing "You dont realize it now, but this test could be the difference between a good life and a wasted life". Its not that there is too much hard work, quite the opposite, its all the little things that count towards the feeling of being "overworked".
I was suggesting in the op that we eliminate at least a few of the little things so that students dont feel overworked, giving them time to think hard about a single issue, rather than barely thinking about multiple.
