the fact that this education minister thinks ANY pupil right now could have a school plan that overemphasises the arts and not STEM is laughable, she and her predecessors (of all political hues) have marginalised the arts - which is quite astounding if you look at the art, design, music that this country produces and the ROI you get. I know that she's mindlessly lumping humanities in with the arts but the same applies.
yes STEM is important and yes a lot of people don't make a full time living out of the arts after study, but consider that only the tiniest percentage of graduates don't have employment, you'll find that those arts graduates have their artistic pursuit as a 2nd income
Well open up a current physics text book and show me where they encourage imaginative thinking, footflaps. Do this, do that, observe such and such, draw this conclusion, learn these facts and make sure you can regurgitate all that in an exam. It just teaches kids to go through pre-written procedures in a formatted manner.
NB For those that don't know STEM is an acronym referring to the academic disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Well open up a current physics text book and show me where they encourage imaginative thinking, footflaps.
In order to advance in any subject you need to learn the basics. If you learn music, you learn the basics first e.g. scales etc but just because you're learning a pattern by heart doesn't mean your mind is being closed. Or is anyone who studies music closed minded as well?
It just teaches kids to go through pre-written procedures in a formatted manner.
It teaches the basics of scientific rigour eg that you start with a hypothesis and design an experiment to prove or disprove the initial hypothesis and then learn how to interpret the results to draw a conclusion.
The very fact we see continual progress in all the STEM subjects shows that people are being open minded and challenging what has gone before and pushing back the boundaries on a daily basis. Or maybe you think that everyone in STEM businesses has actually studied Philosophy.....
I taught my son to play guitar but I didn't teach him scales. He started to ask about them when he found people playing in different keys on Youtube. By that time he was playing very well. I'd post some of his compositions but fear plagiarism so he's banned from putting his original stuff on the Net.
[url=
Bruce from one minute on about his musical education[/url]
It doesn't make a lot of sense to lump GCSE choices and A level choices in together, as science and maths are both (essentially) compulsory at GCSE.
Speaking as an A-level physics teacher, I [i]really[/i] hope we [i]don't[/i] suddenly get a bunch of kids selecting physics because they don't really know what they want to do. I want to teach students who have a genuine interest and aptitude for the subject!
I taught my son to play guitar but I didn't teach him scales.
Well done! You might, however, want to look up the difference between an anecdote and a hypothesis. I will warn you now that it's a STEM thing so you might not understand it.....
Well open up a current physics text book and show me where they encourage imaginative thinking, footflaps.
We currently teach A-level physics B, which requires huge amounts of imagination and creative thinking to apply the fundamental concepts to varied scenarios.
If you want to see creativity, watch these videos made by some students after last year's unit 1 exam, which was fairly 'challenging'... 🙂
You can study STEM academically. It's not just an acronym (or abbreviation), it's also regarded as an approach. See what the Americans have to say.
I don't see any creativity in the first vid, Mike. I see lots of copy-paste.
We currently teach A-level physics B, which requires huge amounts of imagination and creative thinking to apply the fundamental concepts to varied scenarios.
I think we're wasting our time, apparently the only person who can think creatively is edukator and his son (who wasn't taught scales and thus spared a lifetime of closed minded drudgery).
The people I knew at uni who studied philosophy mainly memorised sets of arguments and essays and regurgitated them in an exam.
Discuss.
I don't see any creativity in the first vid, Mike. I see lots of copy-paste.
I see the use of a meme to convey humour.
I think we're wasting our time, apparently the only person who can think creatively is edukator and his son (who wasn't taught scales and thus spared a lifetime of closed minded drudgery).
You say that but a philosophy graduate who can't play scales landed a spaceship on a comet yesterday. Oh, hang on.
I think closed minded people see what they want to see, regardless of the evidence to the contrary....
You say that but a philosophy graduate who can't play scales landed a spaceship on a comet yesterday. Oh, hang on.
I was going to mention that, but he'll just come back saying either:
a) ESA is entirely run by Philosophy graduates
b) he taught them all the guitar
c) none of them learnt scales as a child
The people I knew at uni who studied philosophy mainly memorised sets of arguments and essays and regurgitated them in an exam.
That's pretty much what I did in A Level Latin. Learned to recognise about every 10th sentence in Caesar's 'Gallic Wars' in Latin, then learned the entire English translation around this, on the basis that the passages presented for translation were at least 15 sentences long.
I thought it a creative solution at the time. 😀
I thought it a creative solution at the time.
quid a ipsum scientifica methodo
I think closed minded people see what they want to see, regardless of the evidence to the contrary....
Surely a science-minded person like yourself would know that everyone is affected by confirmation bias.
Surely a science-minded person like yourself would know that everyone is affected by confirmation bias.
Sadly yes.
Philosophy as a subject these days is actually history of philosophy, learn what other people thought, and learn to argue with other people who know what other people thought by countering their repeating other people's thoughts with your own repetition of other peoples thoughts.
Free thinking? Not "just learning by rote"? Pfffft.
Nowadays that we seek to understand the world by observation, measurement, understanding, and analysis; we've got over "philosophy".
we've got over "philosophy".
well some of us have..
Surely a science-minded person like yourself would know that everyone is affected by confirmation bias.
Ever since I learned about confirmation bias I see it everywhere.
Ever since I learned about confirmation bias I see it everywhere.
Genius - should be cross-posted to the short clean joke thread
You say that but a philosophy graduate who can't play scales landed a spaceship on a comet yesterday. Oh, hang on.
I imagine a good number of them were doctors of philosophy.
I kind of see where edukator is coming from. Science taught badly can be about learning equations and answers to exam questions rather than exploring the world around us, questioning it and creating new ideas.
But then so can most subjects.
I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.
I do suggest watching that Jack Bruce interview a few times though. You've been behaving as stereotypical teachers, Mike and Footflaps, trying to put down someone who dares to challenge who you don't have an answer for. When you lack arguments you bluster and insult. Read back, what would the parents of your students think of your childish mimickery, sarcasm and mockery? "Edukator you come across as being very very very stupid" - et pourtant.
[quote=Edukator ]I taught my son to play guitar but I didn't teach him scales.
Presumably it didn't take long to teach him how to hold the guitar and pluck a string. I'm assuming you didn't stifle his imaginative thinking by teaching him chords, rhythm or harmony either. I'm sure an awful lot of musical creativity has been held back by knowing which note comes after which.
Because of course there are a lot of conventions in music - you might hot have formally taught him scales, just as my son hasn't formally learnt any yet with his cornet lessons, but he knows how to play C, D, E, F, G, A (lips not quite yet trained enough to reliably manage the B and next C). Strangely enough the valves are in the same order on all cornets and also the same on a trumpet (and indeed on any valved brass instrument), hence I could play his having never played a cornet before. In the same way there is a standard to the order of strings on a guitar and how music is written down among lots of other things you have to formally learn.
The really interesting thing is that unlike the stuff in a physics text book in music these things are just conventions, with no particular reason why the middle line on a stave is a B, or that the first valve on a trumpet drops the note two semi-tones.
edit:
[quote=Edukator ]I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.
Oops, you posted while I was typing - though I think my point stands.
I kind of see where edukator is coming from. Science taught badly can be about learning equations and answers to exam questions rather than exploring the world around us, questioning it and creating new ideas.
There is no taught subject which doesn't involve a lot of learning of ideas which have gone before (that I can think of). All subject ultimately involve "questioning it and creating new ideas" otherwise knowledge would have stopped 100s of years ago and we'd be using Egyptian / Greek technology / language etc.
It is generally considered that "questioning it and creating new ideas" is an innate human trait which is independent of whatever subject you study / profession you choose. Obviously some individuals questions more than others, but you'll find a spread of ability in any subject / field, even amongst Philosophers and musicians who can't play Scales.
I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.
See you tomorrow!
I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.
All I can say is you bring it upon yourself.
I asked how come science keeps expanding in knowledge even though they're all closed minded and you replied with an anecdote about your son and not teaching him the scales. That's hardly engaging in rigorous debate...
Science taught badly can be about learning equations and answers to exam questions rather than exploring the world around us, questioning it and creating new ideas.
We need to provide the students with an understanding of the giants' shoulders, otherwise what will they stand upon?
Besides there's no time for creativity, because of all the mockery and sarcasm.
I think I've been subjected to enough sarcasm, mockery, mimickery and insult for one day.
Your opening gambit was to accuse all science teachers of spoonfeeding facts to be regurgitated, whilst claiming philosophy teachers creative thinking. You reap what you sow.
The things in the physics text book are just as arbitrary. All the measures are convenient units with the exception of the speed of light when it is used as a unit.
Teach harmony sure, but point out the use of counter harmony too.
Teach rhythm, but that the rules aren't fixed and some guitarists play on feel around the rythm. Keith Richards is often just before or after the beat. And that there are lots of time signatures to play with.
Guitar tuning is far from fixed, dropped D, E, G. Do you tune to 400hz or lower? Take off the E string if it gets in the way.
If you must teach a convention then show how the convention has its limits too.
whilst claiming philosophy teachers creative thinking.
Well they certainly don't teach the difference between an anecdote and a hypothesis....
The things in the physics text book are just as arbitrary. All the measures are convenient units with the exception of the speed of light when it is used as a unit.
You really don't understand Physics. Any Physicist / Engineer or Scientist knows that units are arbitrary and it really doesn't matter what set you use as long as it's defined and consistent. The fundamental dimensions such as time, length and mass are all that's important, which is what Physics teaches. In order to measure, record and teach these dimensions you need units, which is why we have them.
You really don't understand Physics.
Quote my incorrect statement please.
[quote=Edukator ]The things in the physics text book are just as arbitrary. All the measures are convenient units with the exception of the speed of light when it is used as a unit.
How curious that for a free thinker you are so predictable 😆 I don't have a physics text book here, but do have an engineering one from uni, and flicking open to a random place it explains how an electrical current in a wire results in a magnetic field. Nothing arbitrary about that. Of course you have to measure stuff which results in arbitrary units, though the speed of light is far from the only one which isn't (mass of a hydrogen atom, universal gravitational constant, triple point of water, wavelength of emission spectrum of krypton-86 atom etc.) and most of the arbitrary ones are now defined simply as multiples or combinations of those.
Teach harmony sure, but point out the use of counter harmony too.
Teach rhythm, but that the rules aren't fixed and some guitarists play on feel around the rythm...
In just the same way that in science you start with the fundamental rules and then go discovering stuff you don't know about. But you still have those conventions you have to start from, especially if you hope to be able to play music with other people in a band or orchestra.
Just because Jack Bruce encountered silly music teachers who didn't appreciate his creativity doesn't mean he'd have been able to produce what he did without having learnt the basics - he's fundamentally wrong about it all being useless and forgetting that the stuff he uses without even thinking about he had to learn by rote at some point.
Do you tune to 400hz or lower?
Oi, stop using those arbitrary units of physics when discussing music.
Teach harmony sure, but point out the use of counter harmony too.
Teach rhythm, but that the rules aren't fixed and some guitarists play on feel around the rythm. Keith Richards is often just before or after the beat. And that there are lots of time signatures to play with.
Guitar tuning is far from fixed, dropped D, E, G. Do you tune to 400hz or lower? Take off the E string if it gets in the way.
If you must teach a convention then show how the convention has its limits too.
Are you suggesting some sort of freeform jazz physics?
Are you suggesting some sort of freeform jazz physics?
Whilst that would be nice I'm suggesting that science students also do philosophy, a couple of languages, social sciences, music and art throughout their schooling. In the hope their faculties for creative and original thought are stimulated and flourish.
Edit: at the German school I visit each year they all do music right up to eighteen. French kids do philosophy to eighteen whether they do a scientific, literary or social science BAC.
Philosophy for science students in France:
LE SUJET
La conscience
L'inconscient
Le désir
LA CULTURE
L'art
Le travail et la technique
La religion
LA RAISON ET LE REEL
La démonstration
Le vivant
La matière et l'esprit
La vérité
LE POLITIQUE
La société
La justice et le droit
L'Etat
LA MORALE
La liberté
Le devoir
Le bonheur
Quite a fixed curriculum.
With lots of scope for thought provoking discussion and debate.
Sounds like Baccalaureate stuff to me. To each their own I guess. Not that soft subjects aren't useful (Im an advocate of having at least a second language) but a lot of the time they only lead anywhere for the top percentile of those who study them whilst everyone else retrains for something actually useful. This is also true for specialised STEM subjects as well but they tend to have a much lower intake.
quid a ipsum scientifica methodo
Hang on, I'll be with you in a sec.
"All Gaul is divided into three parts".
?
Whilst that would be nice I'm suggesting that science students also do philosophy, a couple of languages, social sciences, music and art throughout their schooling
Some of my A-level physics students do study one or more of those. I'm not sure how they'd manage all of them while retaining the depth and breadth of study that A levels offer.
What do universities and employers think of reducing the time spent on A-level subjects to do some painting, playing and pontificating?
