Scientific Endeavours
I recently had the occasion, guided by Gnomus, to look at the statistics for successful science scholarships issued from the Atlantean Star HQ. Those of you who have access to my prosopon will know what statistics I'm referring to.
It amazes me that for a similar outlay, it is quite clear that some Integrated Programmes are heavily anti-science while pretending to be pro-science. Have they no con-science? Or is it all a science-con?
These questions came to mind as I spent time teaching some young people from a certain school about alchemy this week. Especially when I was horrified by the fact that they were being examined in stuff they weren't supposed to have learnt.
I don't mind enrichment; this is a valuable part of education. But to force young people to take tests in stuff they aren't supposed to be tested in is some sort of intellectual rape. As one young man put it, "We pointed out that the stuff in the examination wasn't in the syllabus, and they said, haha, so sorry, it's good for you."
Let me make this clear. If you are teaching in an open-ended way that nurtures thought and argument from first principles (after first figuring out how to establish first principles), then that's good, keep it up. If the questions that you test them with are fair under those terms, that's great. But if you are cramming the students with stuff because it's more convenient to do that and call it 'talent development' or 'gifted enrichment' or some rubbish like that, then that's lax at best and immoral at worst.
You can tell that the school as a whole has quenched interest in science. It has a very roughly 1% success rate at the Atlantean Stars; others are showing a far higher rate than that.
It amazes me that for a similar outlay, it is quite clear that some Integrated Programmes are heavily anti-science while pretending to be pro-science. Have they no con-science? Or is it all a science-con?
These questions came to mind as I spent time teaching some young people from a certain school about alchemy this week. Especially when I was horrified by the fact that they were being examined in stuff they weren't supposed to have learnt.
I don't mind enrichment; this is a valuable part of education. But to force young people to take tests in stuff they aren't supposed to be tested in is some sort of intellectual rape. As one young man put it, "We pointed out that the stuff in the examination wasn't in the syllabus, and they said, haha, so sorry, it's good for you."
Let me make this clear. If you are teaching in an open-ended way that nurtures thought and argument from first principles (after first figuring out how to establish first principles), then that's good, keep it up. If the questions that you test them with are fair under those terms, that's great. But if you are cramming the students with stuff because it's more convenient to do that and call it 'talent development' or 'gifted enrichment' or some rubbish like that, then that's lax at best and immoral at worst.
You can tell that the school as a whole has quenched interest in science. It has a very roughly 1% success rate at the Atlantean Stars; others are showing a far higher rate than that.
etched with acid at 12:03:00 am
7 Comments:
I don't understand, surely it wouldn't hurt to determine if the person was paying attention when the stuff that wasn't in the syllabus was being taught? Or do we really take a "take it or leave it, your loss" approach?
The point is that a syllabus is an objective document of intent designed to describe a part of a larger curriculum. You will eventually have examinations set on it, and everyone knows what will be set.
For out-of-syllabus stuff, if you are told in advance that local examinations will be set on it, that is a fair test. If you are told it is out-of-syllabus and not told that you will be tested on it, and yet you are tested on it, that is not a fair test.
Does this make sense?
Even talent development has to take place within a directed and focused framework designed to achieve clearly specified objectives. Talent development should not be a holding area for a hodgepodge of things which you could not sort into a clear obvious category - it is certainly not a miscellany.
monk: actually, I think what happened was that the teachers forgot what curriculum they were supposed to be teaching; this led to inadvertent hybridisation, what some people in a bygone era might have referred to as miscegenation, and others even farther back in time would have called, "Neither fish nor fowl."
Are successful science scholarships indicative of interest in science?
I hope you don't mind my questioning.
Is it possible that testing out of the syllabus stimulates interest in science? Surely the inquisitive would go beyond the syllabus - and be duly rewarded in examinations. I am but a student, but I note that peers who bother to understand with greater depth and breadth tend to do better, whether in easy papers or hard.
Successful science scholarships are indicative of successful science scholarship. If you have worked hard at your science and contributed sufficiently deeply, and also managed to survive everything else, you get a science scholarship for being a successful science scholar.
Testing out of syllabus rewards learning out of syllabus, no doubt about it. Testing out of syllabus without telling people that you will do it is bad form; testing out of syllabus and penalizing people for not studying out of syllabus is evil because it effectively creates a new syllabus.
Greater depth and breadth is indicative in most cases of an independent approach to learning, not necessarily a decision to play the specific out-of-syllabus game of the institution.
Ah. Though regarding original content of the post, I was one of those who applied (and received) said scholarship. Out of the six of us who applied, the four who got it were from the IP; the two who didn't were girls. The administration told us that six was the maximum, perhaps it's because our population is comparatively smaller?
Post a Comment
<< Home