because modern academics don’t always actually care about teaching people and are often more concerned with weird ego competitions.
people might try to justify this sort of behavior to you but just know drawing the dots between the constellations in human knowledge is what you’re supposed to be doing, even if you don’t do it well.
i’m so fucking sick of school apparently just being a place to memorize things for a test and then flushing that “knowledge” in favour of the next round of data…
If you’re tested on using a tool (a course’s subjects) you’re expected to use the tool.
You’re tested on a drill, of course you’re not supposed to use a wrench, even if it does the job, success on the course test is (or at least supposed to be) a proof of you knowing the subject matter, this includes knowing the tools that are given to you.
i understand the architecture and ethos of modern academia/pedagogy, i don’t need an explanation.
i’m just not convinced that this methodology or this culture is the best way to instill skills and knowledge in individuals.
it certainly makes people good at becoming corporate peons later in life, only learning to problem solve in limited contexts where a higher authority grants you permission on what to think or use in your solution building process.
i’d like to live my life in a way that doesn’t make nearly religious appeals to a higher power, however. i’ve met many peers who will teach their students exactly contrary to the traditionalist take you’ve shown here… and you know what? their students seem to, anecdotally, have better outcomes than the stuffier traditional ones. the traditional model assumes that, like you said, showing didactic ability to repeat the exact steps and methods taught in the course demonstrates proof of conceptual knowledge in the subject. modern research into how human learning actually works has demonstrated handily that this assumption is entirely unfounded, and that those two things don’t directly correlate the way many would imply. the traditional educational model is broken and no longer serves modern society in any real way other than as a class barrier. you can learn basically anything you want nowadays on the internet. society won’t play ball with you until you fork up an arm and a leg to go “network” at a college, usually, though…
You need to take a few steps back, you’re making a very long reply to something i haven’t said.
I’ll be clear, i DONT like regurgitating proofs in a test, it’s literally where i am most likely to lose points.
I WAS talking about solving a test question using material from another course, which is silly because that would be admitting “i can’t use the tool i was supposed to practice with during homework”.
Because as a problem solver, you’re expected to be able to have a variety of tools to solve problems with, and you should want that, to make sure you solve problems using tools that make the solutions better in one way or the other.
On the contrary, if i allow solving a test using a different course’s material then what the fuck is the test measuring? It certainly can’t be used to say “this person knows how to use what i taught them”.
You need to take a few steps back, you’re making a very long reply to something i haven’t said.
I mean, if you don’t want to read people’s replies then don’t participate in discourse on an online forum. Idk what to tell you there. Not every single point in a thread pertains to you personally, and my response was relevant to the discussion at hand.
I WAS talking about solving a test question using material from another course, which is silly because that would be admitting “i can’t use the tool i was supposed to practice with during homework”.
Well, this isn’t the point of tests, which if you considered my earlier replies, was actually my entire thesis, for the most part. But for the sake of debate, lets concede this point as just being true and see what happens. Assuming that a test is intended to show a mastery of the course’s tools, using a tool from ‘outside’ of the course doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that you “can’t use the tool you were supposed to practice with.” You either used the ‘required’ method correctly, demonstrating tool competence, or you didn’t. If the problem gets solved by a different route, that’s not necessarily a binary condemnation one way or the other. It’s just more data.
Further, if we grant that this is the point of a test in education… then if it can be solved by an external tool or method, how is that the fault of the student? The student anticipates the instructor to design the course and test in a manner that might require the intended solutions… if it can be easily solved by alternative means, that is a failure of the test design, not the students. Rejecting these answers categorically is punishing students for the teacher’s failures.
You’re tested on a drill, of course you’re not supposed to use a wrench, even if it does the job, success on the course test is (or at least supposed to be) a proof of you knowing the subject matter, this includes knowing the tools that are given to you.
Finally, even in your own analogy, your logic doesn’t really hold up as a conclusion. A person who uses a wrench to complete a drilling task has still demonstrated both the ability to get the job done and problem-solving flexibility. If the examiner wants to know “can they use a drill,” the question must force the use of a drill. If it doesn’t, the metric itself has failed. Essentially, you are saying that a test’s whole purpose is to measure the student’s ability to use a proscribed tool. Yet, we are still sitting here arguing about what happens when a test… doesn’t fulfill that purpose? Do you not see the clear contradiction starting to appear here? This isn’t just a case of bad test design, the counterexamples here can’t just be easily squared away with a No True Scotsman argument. This definition of what makes a test ‘useful’ is just logically incoherent…
In reality, tests don’t measure the student’s ability to use tools. The purpose of a test is decided by who designs the test. Often, however, the goal is to best glean student’s cumulative knowledge. We’ve famously known for hundreds of years, however, that you can’t directly know anything outside of your own existence. So, in practice, tests measure a many different things. Your zealous and iconoclastic views on academia basically preclude the possibility for cross-disciplinary practices and knowledge. All of human knowledge is people smearing the lines we draw in the sand. Sometimes we see a prettier picture than before.
You’re overcomplicating your reply and it doesn’t make it look any smarter.
You cant force a solution in a math question from the question, and also have the question not be trivial, do you actually have any experience in using higher level maths or are you speaking out of your ass like the guy i was replying to originally
You cant force a solution in a math question from the question
That’s not generally true. That’s entirely dependent on the question and whoever designed it. Solve for x in Ax = b can be solved a metric fuckton of ways. Solve for x in Ax = b using Gaussian elimination is solvable in much fewer, often one, way. That’s just a trivial example but the idea that you can’t both force a solution and have a non-trivial question is demonstrably false to anyone with experience.
You’re overcomplicating your reply and it doesn’t make it look any smarter.
Ah, so now length is the crime and experience is the verdict? Fascinating. Meanwhile, the logical contradiction in your own position remains completely untouched. I have a master’s degree in ML/AI so I actually have quite a lot of experience in mathematics.
Do you actually have any experience in working in academics, or are you just ‘speaking out of your ass’? It’s not particularly relevant, either way. Your position would be more in-place at a high-school geometry class than in a genuine collegiate setting, let alone in academia or industry research.
because modern academics don’t always actually care about teaching people and are often more concerned with weird ego competitions.
people might try to justify this sort of behavior to you but just know drawing the dots between the constellations in human knowledge is what you’re supposed to be doing, even if you don’t do it well.
i’m so fucking sick of school apparently just being a place to memorize things for a test and then flushing that “knowledge” in favour of the next round of data…
If you’re tested on using a tool (a course’s subjects) you’re expected to use the tool.
You’re tested on a drill, of course you’re not supposed to use a wrench, even if it does the job, success on the course test is (or at least supposed to be) a proof of you knowing the subject matter, this includes knowing the tools that are given to you.
i understand the architecture and ethos of modern academia/pedagogy, i don’t need an explanation.
i’m just not convinced that this methodology or this culture is the best way to instill skills and knowledge in individuals.
it certainly makes people good at becoming corporate peons later in life, only learning to problem solve in limited contexts where a higher authority grants you permission on what to think or use in your solution building process.
i’d like to live my life in a way that doesn’t make nearly religious appeals to a higher power, however. i’ve met many peers who will teach their students exactly contrary to the traditionalist take you’ve shown here… and you know what? their students seem to, anecdotally, have better outcomes than the stuffier traditional ones. the traditional model assumes that, like you said, showing didactic ability to repeat the exact steps and methods taught in the course demonstrates proof of conceptual knowledge in the subject. modern research into how human learning actually works has demonstrated handily that this assumption is entirely unfounded, and that those two things don’t directly correlate the way many would imply. the traditional educational model is broken and no longer serves modern society in any real way other than as a class barrier. you can learn basically anything you want nowadays on the internet. society won’t play ball with you until you fork up an arm and a leg to go “network” at a college, usually, though…
You need to take a few steps back, you’re making a very long reply to something i haven’t said.
I’ll be clear, i DONT like regurgitating proofs in a test, it’s literally where i am most likely to lose points.
I WAS talking about solving a test question using material from another course, which is silly because that would be admitting “i can’t use the tool i was supposed to practice with during homework”.
Because as a problem solver, you’re expected to be able to have a variety of tools to solve problems with, and you should want that, to make sure you solve problems using tools that make the solutions better in one way or the other.
On the contrary, if i allow solving a test using a different course’s material then what the fuck is the test measuring? It certainly can’t be used to say “this person knows how to use what i taught them”.
I mean, if you don’t want to read people’s replies then don’t participate in discourse on an online forum. Idk what to tell you there. Not every single point in a thread pertains to you personally, and my response was relevant to the discussion at hand.
Well, this isn’t the point of tests, which if you considered my earlier replies, was actually my entire thesis, for the most part. But for the sake of debate, lets concede this point as just being true and see what happens. Assuming that a test is intended to show a mastery of the course’s tools, using a tool from ‘outside’ of the course doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that you “can’t use the tool you were supposed to practice with.” You either used the ‘required’ method correctly, demonstrating tool competence, or you didn’t. If the problem gets solved by a different route, that’s not necessarily a binary condemnation one way or the other. It’s just more data.
Further, if we grant that this is the point of a test in education… then if it can be solved by an external tool or method, how is that the fault of the student? The student anticipates the instructor to design the course and test in a manner that might require the intended solutions… if it can be easily solved by alternative means, that is a failure of the test design, not the students. Rejecting these answers categorically is punishing students for the teacher’s failures.
Finally, even in your own analogy, your logic doesn’t really hold up as a conclusion. A person who uses a wrench to complete a drilling task has still demonstrated both the ability to get the job done and problem-solving flexibility. If the examiner wants to know “can they use a drill,” the question must force the use of a drill. If it doesn’t, the metric itself has failed. Essentially, you are saying that a test’s whole purpose is to measure the student’s ability to use a proscribed tool. Yet, we are still sitting here arguing about what happens when a test… doesn’t fulfill that purpose? Do you not see the clear contradiction starting to appear here? This isn’t just a case of bad test design, the counterexamples here can’t just be easily squared away with a No True Scotsman argument. This definition of what makes a test ‘useful’ is just logically incoherent…
In reality, tests don’t measure the student’s ability to use tools. The purpose of a test is decided by who designs the test. Often, however, the goal is to best glean student’s cumulative knowledge. We’ve famously known for hundreds of years, however, that you can’t directly know anything outside of your own existence. So, in practice, tests measure a many different things. Your zealous and iconoclastic views on academia basically preclude the possibility for cross-disciplinary practices and knowledge. All of human knowledge is people smearing the lines we draw in the sand. Sometimes we see a prettier picture than before.
You’re overcomplicating your reply and it doesn’t make it look any smarter.
You cant force a solution in a math question from the question, and also have the question not be trivial, do you actually have any experience in using higher level maths or are you speaking out of your ass like the guy i was replying to originally
That’s not generally true. That’s entirely dependent on the question and whoever designed it. Solve for x in Ax = b can be solved a metric fuckton of ways. Solve for x in Ax = b using Gaussian elimination is solvable in much fewer, often one, way. That’s just a trivial example but the idea that you can’t both force a solution and have a non-trivial question is demonstrably false to anyone with experience.
Ah, so now length is the crime and experience is the verdict? Fascinating. Meanwhile, the logical contradiction in your own position remains completely untouched. I have a master’s degree in ML/AI so I actually have quite a lot of experience in mathematics.
Do you actually have any experience in working in academics, or are you just ‘speaking out of your ass’? It’s not particularly relevant, either way. Your position would be more in-place at a high-school geometry class than in a genuine collegiate setting, let alone in academia or industry research.