🚀 go-pugleaf

On 27 Jan 2005 13:49:21 -0500, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

>In article <jay-0EC958.09290427012005@news.stanford.edu>,
>Jay Kadis  <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>In article <ctb6i3$1stu@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
>> hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>> Even this is not enough, as few teachers understand the
>>> basics of their subjects, but proceed by rote.  
> -- 
>
>>OK, got some statistics on this?
>
>How would one get statistics on this?

Why would someone who teaches statistics think that his opinions are
fact in the absence of any objective data?

>I have taught a few prospective teachers, and my late wife 
>taught many of them.  Often coming home after a day of
>teaching these, she complained of illness from that.  Not
>all of them were bad in the advanced classes, but the one
>time she taught prospective elementary teachers in a required
>class, it was miserable.

What did she teach?

>The best piece of clear evidence we have is the "new math"
>debacle of more than 40 years ago.

Here we go again..  Something no one wanted except the mathematicians
who were pushing it.  Something OTHER mathematicians argued
strenuously AGAINST.  Something PARENTS strongly objected to.  Forced
down teachers' throats from above.  Elementary teachers, with
essentially NO love of math, and (usually) limited math skills being
poorly trained over (maybe) a summer on math concepts and then
expected to impliment AGAINST the wishes and objections of parents.
Yeah, fat chance THAT had of going anywhere.  It's chief cheerleader
argued against rushing it into wide usage!  For Pete's sake, Herman,
it's been 4 decades - Get over it!  It was of questionable value,
rushed into play FAR too quickly, and essentially unsupported (too
little training over FAR too short a time, and no effort made to "sell
it" to anyone.)  It was just one more thing in an endless string of
"good ideas" forced into play by people who didn't have to make it
work.