How many people believe his claim that kids in Korea, Singapore, etc, study 23 hours a day?

 

How many people believe his claim that kids in Korea, Singapore, etc, study 23 hours a day?

I spent two years in South Korea and it is almost believable. They are very serious about education and getting into college. During final exams it is illegal to honk your horn in a school zone. In college I can certainly see students studying long hours in a day.
Being a teacher is a well respected vocation in Japan, China and Korea. In America it is too often considered to be "what people do when they can't get a job".

 

I spent two years in South Korea and it is almost believable. They are very serious about education and getting into college. During final exams it is illegal to honk your horn in a school zone. In college I can certainly see students studying long hours in a day.
Being a teacher is a well respected vocation in Japan, China and Korea. In America it is too often considered to be "what people do when they can't get a job".

So do kids there study 23 hours a day, like this guy claimed more than once?

 

So do kids there study 23 hours a day, like this guy claimed more than once?

Probably more at the college level or before exams at and above high school. Done that myself on many occasions. You get wrapped up in a subject and forget all else. You take a nap, a shower (maybe) and start all over again where you left off. "First programming challenges" get this act a lot. "First major building project", same thing. Have you never faced such a challenge? Term papers?

 

Probably more at the college level or before exams at and above high school. Done that myself on many occasions. You get wrapped up in a subject and forget all else. You take a nap, a shower (maybe) and start all over again where you left off. "First programming challenges" get this act a lot. "First major building project", same thing. Have you never faced such a challenge? Term papers?

Pulling an occasional all-nighter is very different than the claim that their kids study 23 hours a day and ours don't and that's why they do better than us. He's talking about on average -- otherwise his statement is meaningless. If he means that they sometimes study 23 hours a day, well, sometimes our kids do to.

 

I believe that K-12 math education places far too much emphasis on calculation. Like the speakers in the video, I believe that math should be taught in the same spirit as literature and fine arts. While basic numeracy is important, I think it is orthogonal to mathematics, and should be considered a distinct subject. Math is no more about numbers than computer science is about computers, yet, as a whole, K-12 teachers do not know enough mathematics to actually teach math, so instead the entire curriculum is filled with algorithmic computations. This makes it easy for non-specialists to fill the ranks of math teachers, but we should stop calling it math.

It's no wonder that kids come out of high school confident in their hatred of "math" -- only an accountant could enjoy the drudgery and tedium of a decade filled with mind-numbing rote calculations. Long division? The quadratic formula? K-12 "math" education is like studying music -- scales, harmonic theory, notation -- without ever actually hearing any music. How many of us would claim we loved "music" with such an upbringing?

As for making change at the register, that's not math, that's counting, and counting is hard for humans and takes lots of practice (which, incidentally, is why we tend to suck at estimating probabilities). Math is what happens when you abstract counting and see what happens, a far more interesting way to spend one's time. I'm terrible at counting -- I'd be the cashier who has to ring in the exact amount to give the correct change; fortunately, however, I'm really good at math.

 

Fine. Stop calling it "math" and go back to calling it "arithmetic".

Does that solve the perceived problems?

 

I attribute my love of math to my father. He emphasized the basics, yet instilled in me a curiosity to explore (what he called were) shortcuts. I learned almost before learning the mechanics or rote facts of multiplication or division, how to identify a number divisible by 3. And this intrigued me so much, I had to find out for myself why if a numbers digits add to 3, 6 or 9, then... I learned the meanings behind mathematics as well as the processes. I went on to get my BSAM. Bachelor of Science in Applied Mathematics.

 

Fine. Stop calling it "math" and go back to calling it "arithmetic".

Does that solve the perceived problems?

It's a step in the right direction, at least for some of the perceived problems. The issue is that no one can agree on what, exactly, we want our kids to get out of their math classes. If basic numeracy and calculations are the end goal, we should do like Hacker suggests and cut out algebra II, trig, and calculus from the curriculum. Call the subject arithmetic, and make algebra II and the rest electives. Of course, while we're at it, we might as well cut out Shakespeare and such. If we want K-12 to be preparation for the job market, we should redo the entire curriculum.

Personally, I think that's a terrible idea. I believe in a liberal arts education, in the study of humanity and its works for its own sake. I also believe that mathematics can be fruitfully taught as a liberal art. A first step is to remove math from the state testing process by which schools get their funds. They can still test for arithmetic in elementary and middle school, but in high school they should treat math as they do the humanities. History of math should be an early high school requirement (which would provide the necessary context to understand what the fuss is all about), while other requirements might include survey classes and intros to the math that is most relevant to an information age society, such as discrete math and linear algebra. The more traditional algebra/trig/calc classes would be offered as electives to those so inclined. But, most importantly, by decoupling math from the testing metrics, math teachers would have far more room and motivation to explore math in ways that can actually resonate with students.

If teaching high school math can be made more rewarding by killing the connection with standardized test results, then more qualified math teachers are apt to answer the call, resulting in a better classroom experience, leading to more kids being interested in actual math, which elevates us all.

 

In reality, it probably should be taught as "applied math". By that, have real world problem tat needs solving. Incorporate that problem in say another course with the "math" curriculum.

Example: Divide a board into "thirds" and cut with a saw. There's a LOT of stuff that goes into this.
Resolution, precision, trig (possibly), (width of the blade), expansion etc.

It's not just 12/3 because getting three 4"(+-)something) boards may require more than 12" width.

Dividing a board into thirds only requires a ruler and no math.

Same kind of issue:

Discuss a bubble level, a water level and an accelerometer.

Thermodynamics: Why using a wider pot is better when cooling by convection.

So, let's have a problem and teach the "tools" to solve it not "teach the tools" with no idea what they are good for.

History makes a lot more sense when you talk about "Why" did it happen. the history I remember was just regurgitating information.

So, don't teach Trump/Clinton won the election, bit why did Trump/Clinton win the election.

 

Pulling an occasional all-nighter is very different than the claim that their kids study 23 hours a day and ours don't and that's why they do better than us. He's talking about on average -- otherwise his statement is meaningless. If he means that they sometimes study 23 hours a day, well, sometimes our kids do to.

You hear his meaning differently than I do. I can relate to those long hours of study. I guess it comes easier for some than others. I remember those forb whom study came early and didn't need to. Then there were those who just didn't study at all. Me? I had to do the all-nighter way too often.

 

So, don't teach Trump/Clinton won the election, bit why did Trump/Clinton win the election.

Hopefully this won't lead to teaching what a hanging chad or butterfly ballot are..