Support NeoGAF

[eot]

i think math has such great potential to be taught in a much more interesting way, and more efficiently.. and to EVERYONE, even slackers and students who dont give a fuck

id always hear from other students "like wtf are u gonna use math for in real life lol??"

and it makes sense, theyre right but only because of how its taught

so much shit you can nail using math, especially if you are a creative hands on builder type

i use unit conversions and algebra so often in everyday life

trigonometry is such a beautiful tool if you work with boxes and circles and cones and shit

i even used 3d calculus once to find the volume of objects i made up

theres a real colorful artfulness about math that doesnt get taught in the way it deserves to be taught, it really tickles your curiosity

Read this if you have some time:

https://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~pawelst/rzut_oka/Zajecia_dla_MISH_2011-12/Lektury_files/LockhartsLament.pdf

I'll just quote the first page

A musician wakes from a terrible nightmare. In his dream he finds himself in a society where music education has been made mandatory. “We are helping our students become more competitive in an increasingly sound-filled world.” Educators, school systems, and the state are put in charge of this vital project. Studies are commissioned, committees are formed, and decisions are made— all without the advice or participation of a single working musician or composer.

Since musicians are known to set down their ideas in the form of sheet music, these curious black dots and lines must constitute the “language of music.” It is imperative that students become fluent in this language if they are to attain any degree of musical competence; indeed, it would be ludicrous to expect a child to sing a song or play an instrument without having a thorough grounding in music notation and theory. Playing and listening to music, let alone composing an original piece, are considered very advanced topics and are generally put off until college, and more often graduate school.

As for the primary and secondary schools, their mission is to train students to use this language— to jiggle symbols around according to a fixed set of rules: “Music class is where we take out our staff paper, our teacher puts some notes on the board, and we copy them or transpose them into a different key. We have to make sure to get the clefs and key signatures right, and our teacher is very picky about making sure we fill in our quarter-notes completely. One time we had a chromatic scale problem and I did it right, but the teacher gave me no credit because I had the stems pointing the wrong way.”

In their wisdom, educators soon realize that even very young children can be given this kind of musical instruction. In fact it is considered quite shameful if one’s third-grader hasn’t completely memorized his circle of fifths. “I’ll have to get my son a music tutor. He simply won’t apply himself to his music homework. He says it’s boring. He just sits there staring out the window, humming tunes to himself and making up silly songs.”

In the higher grades the pressure is really on. After all, the students must be prepared for the standardized tests and college admissions exams. Students must take courses in Scales and Modes, Meter, Harmony, and Counterpoint. “It’s a lot for them to learn, but later in college when they finally get to hear all this stuff, they’ll really appreciate all the work they did in highschool.” Of course, not many students actually go on to concentrate in music, so only a few will ever get to hear the sounds that the black dots represent. Nevertheless, it is important that every member of society be able to recognize a modulation or a fugal passage, regardless of the fact that they will never hear one. “To tell you the truth, most students just aren’t very good at music. They are bored in class, their skills are terrible, and their homework is barely legible. Most of them couldn’t care less about how important music is in today’s world; they just want to take the minimum number of music courses and be done with it. I guess there are just music people and non-music people. I had this one kid, though, man was she sensational! Her sheets were impeccable— every note in the right place, perfect calligraphy, sharps, flats, just beautiful. She’s going to make one hell of a musician someday.”

Waking up in a cold sweat, the musician realizes, gratefully, that it was all just a crazy dream. “Of course!” he reassures himself, “No society would ever reduce such a beautiful and meaningful art form to something so mindless and trivial; no culture could be so cruel to its children as to deprive them of such a natural, satisfying means of human expression. How absurd!”

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, a painter has just awakened from a similar nightmare…

 

[triplestation]

Read this if you have some time:

https://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~pawelst/rzut_oka/Zajecia_dla_MISH_2011-12/Lektury_files/LockhartsLament.pdf

I'll just quote the first page

perfect

 

[Yoshi]

Important subjects (maths, physics, computer science, chemistry, biology) I did on the train or completed at home if they were actually challenging. Irrelevant subject (e.g. German, English, religion) I made up on the fly.

 

[Jooxed]

didnt do it lmao

honestly thought you were still in high school. color me shocked.

 

[synchronicity]

Lol daaam. What a punk as$ teacher if u were aceing the tests u shldnt have to retake it. Hw shld only be like 15% of the grade.

No doubt. But to be fair to her, I was pretty stubborn and intolerant of what I considered to be "dumb" things, and I think my openly vocal opposition to her methods caused her to dig in her heals and enforce her "authority". I surely wasn't the typical student, lol.

I still think it's ridiculous to penalize a student who has shown mastery of a subject for not jumping through all the hoops. I think she lost the forest for the trees.

 

[Rbk_3]

I rarely did any. I grew up on a farm and had 2 hours of chores to do after school so I didn't really take school seriously until college.

 

[n0razi]

Never did homework until college

 

[bigsnack]

I would do my homework in class immediately after it was assigned, or usually right after dinner. I think I completed every assignment / paper early unless there was a reason I couldn't, such as a school band event, or something family related. Homework used to eat at me if it wasn't done, I personally couldn't relax fully unless it was completed. There was absolutely no pressure from my folks to do well in school, I was pretty self-driven. I distinctly remember getting an F on a test in fourth grade, and I cried my eyes out and felt like absolute shit. I stepped up my game hard after that test.

 

[SpiceRacz]

Barely bothered with it in high school. As a consequence, I had to retake a few classes during summer. Was a lot better about it in college.

 

[Kayoba]

Got super strict parents, so they forced me to do it.

 

[Thurible]

Irrelevant subject (e.g. German, English, religion) I made up on the fly.

How are any of those subjects irrelevant? Language is necessary for communication, especially in a globally connected world. Also, even if you personally are not a fan of religious faiths, they are clearly important as they exist throughout the world and define many people's way of life.

For example, while I am not the biggest fan of mathematics, I would never say that it is an irrelevant subject.

 

[Brian Fellows]

By putting it off until the last minute or just not doing it.

 

[Yoshi]

How are any of those subjects irrelevant? Language is necessary for communication, especially in a globally connected world. Also, even if you personally are not a fan of religious faiths, they are clearly important as they exist throughout the world and define many people's way of life.

For example, while I am not the biggest fan of mathematics, I would never say that it is an irrelevant subject.

Language is necessary, but reading Shakespeare and Fontane to come up with what they wanted to say with their books is not. Also, these subjects are super trivial. As long as you have a good reading comprehension, you can make up your homework in those subjects on the fly without much of an issue. And regarding religion: It is of course a bit fun to read what some people believe to be true and to annoy the teacher a bit with well-placed bible citations (fun fact: I was catholic and our catholic religion teacher was gay, so you can imagine how he was not so happy with his task of looking for our favourite bible verse; though I do think I was a bit too nasty in that instance and would not do the same thing again), but in contrast to mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on, this subject does not explain how the world works, but how some people baselessly think the world works. I prefered to spend my time with subjects that explain reality rather than some fiction. That does not mean I did not put effort into the less relevant subjects, I always had an A in religion and ended English and German on an A+ (but had varying marks over the years).

 

[The Pleasure]

Just something that came up in my head.

I've seen media and news report lament homework as being a waste of time but I honestly never had a problem with it or even considered it hard.

I recall coming from from school, just spending 30 minutes answering questions or writing down notes from an assigned textbook, and boom, done. I literally had the rest of the day to do whatever. Watch TV, play games, go outside etc.

And I don't even consider myself to be a nerd. It was just something drilled inside me. Just finish your homework as soon as possible and then immediately start playing.

Otherwise, it was always straight up piss easy.

Video related:

Fuck you JordanN that song was terrible

 

[Compsiox]

Did it in school or right when I got home. This allowed for a ton of free time most of the time.

It was always super terrible getting assigned big ass projects or essays though.

 

[Whataborman]

I got home from school around 4 PM and dinner was normally around 5:30 or 6 so I did my homework before dinner, leaving plenty of free time later at night. When I was a junior/senior in high school and had a part-time job I also took a study hall period in school so I did a lot of homework there. It was never really difficult, despite taking almost all "honors" (i.e. advanced) classes.

Keep in mind that this was the early/mid-90s and there was less of a focus on extracurricular activities. Today it seems like there's more focus on that and less focus on actual education, which I think is a HUGE problem.

 

[Hudo]

 

[Thurible]

Language is necessary, but reading Shakespeare and Fontane to come up with what they wanted to say with their books is not. Also, these subjects are super trivial. As long as you have a good reading comprehension, you can make up your homework in those subjects on the fly without much of an issue.

While I agree that ultimately it doesn't matter if one knows Shakespeare or Fontane, I do think that it can be useful to read such works to apply some critical thinking to what they are trying to articulate and what it means from a contextual background. Language is not only a conveyance for communicating, but a discipline that requires much thought and purpose. The person writing is trying to display their own thoughts for a specific reason. These reasons can stem from a wide variety of individual or societal causes that oft extend beyond the author who created the work. Literature has a universality that is transcendent. It can be "trivial" but it has it's own importance.

And regarding religion: It is of course a bit fun to read what some people believe to be true and to annoy the teacher a bit with well-placed bible citations (fun fact: I was catholic and our catholic religion teacher was gay, so you can imagine how he was not so happy with his task of looking for our favourite bible verse; though I do think I was a bit too nasty in that instance and would not do the same thing again), but in contrast to mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on, this subject does not explain how the world works, but how some people baselessly think the world works. I prefered to spend my time with subjects that explain reality rather than some fiction.

Theological studies are important because they deal with beliefs that define many people, the reality of the human condition, creation, and the existence of a G-d. It has influenced much of philosophy and cosmology. While physical sciences deal with the how of creation and the world, religions deals with the why. It is not a baseless course of study, as there are many important questions to be asked and examined relating to such matters. It is incredibly important to understand what is man and what is his place here. What is his purpose and why are things ordered the way they are?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I never did homework, not in school, not in college. Fuck that.

Let this be a lesson kids, always do your homework.

 

[Yoshi]

Theological studies are important because they deal with beliefs that define many people, the reality of the human condition, creation, and the existence of a G-d. It has influenced much of philosophy and cosmology. While physical sciences deal with the how of creation and the world, religions deals with the why. It is not a baseless course of study, as there are many important questions to be asked and examined relating to such matters. It is incredibly important to understand what is man and what is his place here. What is his purpose and why are things ordered the way they are?

The matter of whether a god exits (I wonder why you wrote "a G-d", if you think you should not write the name of Yahweh - not even his replacement name God - that would be one thing, but since you used "a", you were speaking about the general concept, so shouldn't it be "a god" and therefore absolutely no reason not to write the term?) is not a matter of theology, because a god is either a fact observable by means of natural sciences or it does not exist at all. Theology cannot contribute to that beyond giving a proper definition of their proclaimed deity.

On topic of the why: I think a fundamental error in this argument is that it presupposes a personalised reason for existence (so beyond the workings of evolution and related mechanisms) for which there is no reason to assume it exists. Pondering a personalised "why" question where there is most likely no why is not important, it is a waste of resources.

 

[TheContact]

i either procrastinated until the very end or sometimes didn't do it. I wish I was like OP and just did it right away, that way you don't have the weight of having to do it so you can enjoy other things in life unhindered. I teach my kids to do it right away though

 

[Amory]

Basically would do it the period before the class it was due for. Usually I'd even be finishing it just before the teacher asked us to hand it in.

God I was a terrible student. I always procrastinated to the point where my life was just a constant panic.

 

[Thurible]

The matter of whether a god exists... is not a matter of theology, because a god is either a fact observable by means of natural sciences or it does not exist at all. Theology cannot contribute to that beyond giving a proper definition of their proclaimed deity.

Theology is the study of religion and G-d or deities in general. It is an attempt to understand humanity and our creation through rigorous study and discipline. The natural sciences are important, but there are also metaphysical questions that cannot be answered through it. Natural science cannot yield any information on the nature of human identity or the first cause, for example. There needs to be a study devoted to this field if it cannot be known through those means.

I wonder why you wrote "a G-d", if you think you should not write the name of Yahweh - not even his replacement name God - that would be one thing, but since you used "a", you were speaking about the general concept, so shouldn't it be "a god" and therefore absolutely no reason not to write the term?

Though I wrote generally, I was thinking of the judeo-christian deity, G-d/Y-hweh, as many faiths revolve around Him and I also was thinking of Him personally. I try not to directly say or write it as I do not wish to invoke Him without reason (though I admit I sometimes do). In our faith, we understand just speaking one of His names can call to Him. Perhaps I should have just wrote "a god" in general.

On topic of the why: I think a fundamental error in this argument is that it presupposes a personalised reason for existence (so beyond the workings of evolution and related mechanisms) for which there is no reason to assume it exists.

Why is there no reason to assume it exists? If being has no meaning, then why does it continue to exist? Why are there specific mechanisms for the proliferation and continued sustaining of life if it doesn't matter? Why is it important to our bodies to exist? Though one could answer reproduction and the spreading of genes, that doesn't make any sense as there would be no meaning in that. It would be like saying "life exists to be alive", it doesn't answer why that is a preferential state to living things. Why do people have minds? What is the first cause? Is there even a first cause, or is the universe somehow infinite? If it is infinite, then what about the laws of cause and effect and mass conservation, which seem to define a finite world? The universe is red shifting, which seems to indicate expansion from a localized source. If this is a case, the universe is likely finite. Though whether or not it is infinite or not is arguably indicative of possibly supernatural forces. If something is infinite, without beginning or end, why couldn't a being exist with those properties? If something is finite, it has to have an original source, and that cannot be the case as a cause would still need a cause or some kind of reason for being, and some could argue that a solution could be a source that exists outside of a causal chain.

Then there are many other important questions that don't just involve creation or reason for being that involve discussion of philosophy or theology. Does free will exist, or does our nature or environment force our actions? If we are defined by nature or environment, what defines them? Clearly theology is an important field.

 

[Kev Kev]

 

[epicnemesis]

Never did it. Was always good at math, so I figured I could get A’s on tests, not do homework and still get around a B- give or take depending on how heavily homework was weighed.

I also feel like I learned and retained more because I was focused on actually understanding the curriculum rather than doing busy work.

Proof: probably averaged below a 3.0 in undergrad and assessed at top 5% of all B.School graduates.

 

[Yoshi]

but there are also metaphysical questions that cannot be answered through it.

No. Of course there are humanitarian questions that cannot be answered through natural sciences, but there are no metaphysical ones.

Natural science cannot yield any information on the nature of human identity or the first cause, for example.

If no scientific answers can be found on the first cause through natural science, then no scientific answers can be found on the first cause (if there is one).

There needs to be a study devoted to this field if it cannot be known through those means.

If it cannot be known through rigorous, verifiable scientific measures, then that study is worthless because it cannot prove anything. Then it is just speculation.

Though I wrote generally, I was thinking of the judeo-christian deity, G-d/Y-hweh, as many faiths revolve around Him and I also was thinking of Him personally. I try not to directly say or write it as I do not wish to invoke Him without reason (though I admit I sometimes do). In our faith, we understand just speaking one of His names can call to Him. Perhaps I should have just wrote "a god" in general.

Thank you. Though I am not an adherent of Christianity, I must say that to my understanding of the description of the being, him being summoned should not depend on what you write; if you think of him, he would already know and notice.

Why is there no reason to assume it exists?

I would wager there is no reason to assume it is because it does not exist.

If being has no meaning, then why does it continue to exist?

For something to exist, there need not be an intention behind it. It continues to exist until it gets destroyed. Life continues to exist because it has not been extinguished yet.

Why are there specific mechanisms for the proliferation and continued sustaining of life if it doesn't matter?

Because for mechanisms to exist, they require no ideological purpose. There is an algorithm called busy beaver. It just produces a long string of 1s. What is the reason this mechanism exists? There is no reason, it just exists.

Why is it important to our bodies to exist?

Because if it was not important to us to keep existing, then we would not avoid dying and that could be an evolutionary disadvantage. There are animals that are a bit more reckless for the good of a greater collective, where a lesser emphasis on self-preservation can still be fruitful, evolutionary (ants, bees), but since humans are animals where proliferation is a heavy investment of resources for a low amount of offspring, humans can only exist if they value their individual existence and try to avoid death.

Though one could answer reproduction and the spreading of genes, that doesn't make any sense as there would be no meaning in that.

Correct, there is no meaning in that, but no meaning is required. What scientific law would demand there to be a reason for something to exist? There is no such law, not in the way you use reason here.

It would be like saying "life exists to be alive", it doesn't answer why that is a preferential state to living things.

As I said above, it is the preferential state to (many) living things because organisms who put absolutely no value in being alive will not continue to exist and thus fail evolution.

Why do people have minds?

Probably because it is an evolutionary advantage. The mind is an abstraction layer that allows humans to form more complex thoughts and thus learn e.g. to use tools, which is a major advantage for humans over other, stronger animals.

What is the first cause?

It is unclear if it exists and naturally, since - if it exists - it is way in the past, this is a difficult question to answer. It might turn out that we do not have the means to find a definitive answer to this, because no traces of it may remain.

Is there even a first cause, or is the universe somehow infinite? If it is infinite, then what about the laws of cause and effect and mass conservation, which seem to define a finite world?

Mass conversation does not require finiteness, nor does the "law" of cause and effect. In an infinite chain of events (into the past), every effect could be caused by a prior cause. Under the assumption of time having a starting point, the "law" of cause and effect would naturally not be applicable anymore when approaching the starting point of time.

The universe is red shifting, which seems to indicate expansion from a localized source. If this is a case, the universe is likely finite.

Maybe. We do not know.

Though whether or not it is infinite or not is arguably indicative of possibly supernatural forces. If something is infinite, without beginning or end, why couldn't a being exist with those properties?

The question is not "why couldn't such a being exist", the question is "why assume it exists without any indication it does". It could be that small Yoshis are floating around the sun. Why couldn't they exist (and be so small we cannot detect them)?

If something is finite, it has to have an original source, and that cannot be the case as a cause would still need a cause or some kind of reason for being

This claim has no basis. Why could the first state in time not exist without a prior cause? In fact, as the first state of time, by definition, there cannot be a prior cause, because there is no prior.

Then there are many other important questions that don't just involve creation or reason for being that involve discussion of philosophy or theology.

Those are distinct disciplines. I am only saying theology is worthless. Not philosophy in general.

Does free will exist, or does our nature or environment force our actions? If we are defined by nature or environment, what defines them?

Those are questions to be answered by psychologists and biologists.

Clearly theology is an important field.

I disagree.

 

[Thurible]

Yoshi I'm afraid of derailing this thread as now we are entering into a debate about the merits of the subject of theology instead of the original point about how one did their homework growing up. We can continue this discussion in personal messages if you wish.

 

[MastAndo]

Like a huge nerd. My parents let it be known pretty early on that anything less than excellence scholastically was unacceptable. My mom went through my stuff regularly to make sure I had my shit in order and that went on much later in life than I'd like to admit. I still have recurring nightmares of being unprepared for class or a test, and I know there are subconscious elements at play beyond anything related to school, but I think it's partially rooted in fears I had in reality.

No regrets though - it ultimately paid off, though by the end of it all, I couldn't stomach the idea of cracking open another text book ever again. I was really happy to be entering the workforce.

 

[Mistake]

I usually finished it before I even got home. My school didn't really push me enough, so I got lazy going steadily through with A's and B's. Yet kids in my school still failed, even after they lowered the failing grade 5 points. I'll never understand it

 

[Porcile]

I didn't do any homework the entire time I was in secondary school. At worst the punishment was spending 30 mins in the lunch break doing it, which is nothing really considering I had to be at school anyway. Passed all of my important exams too.

 

[Meowzers]

Never really did homework. Detention was a friend of mine but so too was being cool. Though it explains why I'm drinking from a can, swearing at pigeons at 33.

 

[Rival]

.