School Subjects

[CezeN]

Its been a while since I made a thread.
(No offense intended to any teachers of any subjects.)

Which ones are more important?

I'm talking primarily the basics, such as Science, Math, and Language. And History if you want.

Though people commonly say Math and Science are near the same, since both use aspects of the other, I'd say math is basically at its rawest form, logic. And therefore, it trumps Science. Which though using logic(scientific method) its about learning how things work. Knowing how zygotes or whatever do whatever won't necessarily help you out in daily life, as much as knowing how to properly share 20, 000 dollars.
(Right now I was focusing on those two subjects, your welcome to focus on others though)

Btw- Never noticed that "proxy student" thing. =/....When did that happen

[elfprince13]

Math is based on deductive reasoning which can never lead you to new knowledge, but is used to prove something based on a set of known premises. Science is based on inductive reasoning which is designed to discover things you didn't know before, but which can't be proven.

[locke]

you're behind the times with the custom titles. :-p

if you don't know how a zygote is made either your life as a male will not be as happy and awesome as it could be (which doesn't necessarily imply you need to help make them to be happy, just that you know how and enjoy the joint cooking process that can lead to a freshly baked zygote) or you will find zygotes cost more than $20,000, in the long run.

so my conclusion is that knowing about zygotes can definitely help you out in your daily life. So can math. now. figure out the zygote math that 1+1=1

[elfprince13]

if you don't know how a zygote is made either your life as a male will not be as happy and awesome as it could be or you will find zygotes cost more than $20,000, in the long run.

this is quite possibly the best thing I've heard all day. zygotes for the win.

[neo-dragon]

Science trumps all! (says the science teacher)

Seriously though, I do get tired of my less inspired pupils declaring out loud that they will never need a knowledge of science in their lives (since they're not going to be doctors or scientists, which are apparently the only people in the world who benefit from knowing basic science ), and thus they shouldn't have to take a whole 2 science credits out of the 30 total they need to graduate.

I have no doubt that if I were a better teacher I'd be more successful at making the experience of learning the material its own reward, but I do try, and semester by semester I think I get a little better. In any case, even if I can't always make science fun and exciting, I do try to help my students realize that everyone needs some level of science literacy and understanding if for no other reason than to be able to make informed decisions on medical, environmental, and technology related issues. Although I have to admit that that argument carries little weight when a student is struggling with something esoteric like chemical nomenclature, which in all likelihood they will in fact never need in their lives (My argument for that particular case is that it helps with understanding what the various ingredients on food labels actually are).

[human.]

English is obviously the most necessary of the subjects. Without being able to completely analyze books inside and out and far beyond what the author intended, how will you accomplish anything in life? But really, being able to speak and write with coherence and intelligence can help!

(I'm a chemistry girl, myself. Knowing how things work=awesome. And physics is kind of like applied math, right? That's your compromise!)

[Eaquae Legit]

The historian says that more people could do with a crash course in intellectual history. Okay, so not practical at the high school level, but a lot of stupid debates could be improved by knowing a little Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, Aquinas, and others. Not to mention giving context to poor William of Ockham. There really isn't anything new under the sun, and more and more I realise how many Revolutionary! New! Arguments! are just poor rehashings of something Augustine said 1500 years ago.

History is important. It's not as immediately applicable to "real life" as math or science (I disagree with math never discovering anything new, btw), but knowing what happened and how we got to be where we are still strikes me as a good thing. To use the cliché, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

[elfprince13]

The historian says that more people could do with a crash course in intellectual history. Okay, so not practical at the high school level, but a lot of stupid debates could be improved by knowing a little Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, Aquinas, and others. Not to mention giving context to poor William of Ockham. There really isn't anything new under the sun, and more and more I realise how many Revolutionary! New! Arguments! are just poor rehashings of something Augustine said 1500 years ago.

Example: most of the important church thinkers up until Darwin agreed that Genesis wasn't talking about a literally 178 hour creation

It's not as immediately applicable to "real life" as math or science (I disagree with math never discovering anything new, btw)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning. It really can't. Mathematicians can think of new things and use mathematical reasoning to validate or invalidate them, but mathematical reasoning can never prove a conclusion that wasn't fully present in the premises + the laws of reasoning.

[neo-dragon]

(I'm a chemistry girl, myself. Knowing how things work=awesome. And physics is kind of like applied math, right? That's your compromise!)

Awww... Can I adopt you as my student?

[elfprince13]

http://www.xkcd.com/435/


Us computer scientists got left out, but we're basically mathematicians anyway.

[Mich]

Everyone knows that 3D Texturing and Rendering is the most important subject. Every day I have students ask me when they are ever going to use 3D Texturing and Rendering in their everyday life, and I have to roll my eyes at the fact that they find such an important, basic skill beyond their comprehension as a normal activity. I'm sure that if I didn't take 3D Texturing and Rendering in my early childhood I wouldn't see the world as clearly as I do now, nor with as good an analytical structure. Without my teachers getting the basics of 3D Texturing and Rendering in my brain at an early age, none of my current life could be viewed in the same scope as one of me who had not taken 3D Texturing and Rendering classes.

Any person who takes it upon themselves to teach 3D Texturing and Rendering to future generations clearly understands the importance of such a field, and its impact it can have on both the young and the old. Not a day goes by that I am not thankful that my teachers imparted upon me the wisdom and skills that my 3D Texturing and Rendering classes gave me, and the understanding that without 3D Texturing and Rendering classes, I would not be able to function as a real adult, in a real 3D Texturing and Rendering world.

[zeroguy]

The historian says that more people could do with a crash course in intellectual history. Okay, so not practical at the high school level, but a lot of stupid debates could be improved by knowing a little Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, Aquinas, and others. Not to mention giving context to poor William of Ockham. There really isn't anything new under the sun, and more and more I realise how many Revolutionary! New! Arguments! are just poor rehashings of something Augustine said 1500 years ago.

I know people are taking this thread with varying seriousness... but I've heard this before, and it fries my hash just a little. Why does it matter so much that people think their ideas are new when they are not? Because "someone is wrong on the internet"?

To use the cliché, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

This, too. Is this really implying that historians don't repeat it, as well?

It's not as immediately applicable to "real life" as math or science (I disagree with math never discovering anything new, btw)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning. It really can't. Mathematicians can think of new things and use mathematical reasoning to validate or invalidate them, but mathematical reasoning can never prove a conclusion that wasn't fully present in the premises + the laws of reasoning.

Your usage of "new" is curious. To me, your argument sounds smilar to saying that nothing in science is new, because it was always just there for us to look at.

You also appear to assume mathematicians always work with the same set of premises and laws of reasoning. While that's true on the basic level of, say, modus ponens, mathematicians and logicians work in many different systems of logic, and create their own. The rules can be very different.

Unrelated to the above...

if you don't know how a zygote is made either your life as a male will not be as happy and awesome as it could be (which doesn't necessarily imply you need to help make them to be happy, just that you know how and enjoy the joint cooking process that can lead to a freshly baked zygote) or you will find zygotes cost more than $20,000, in the long run.

[Eaquae Legit]

The historian says that more people could do with a crash course in intellectual history. Okay, so not practical at the high school level, but a lot of stupid debates could be improved by knowing a little Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, Aquinas, and others. Not to mention giving context to poor William of Ockham. There really isn't anything new under the sun, and more and more I realise how many Revolutionary! New! Arguments! are just poor rehashings of something Augustine said 1500 years ago.

I know people are taking this thread with varying seriousness... but I've heard this before, and it fries my hash just a little. Why does it matter so much that people think their ideas are new when they are not? Because "someone is wrong on the internet"?

No, it's not just the interwubs and flame wars. Possibly because of my time period in particular - the "dark ages" - I'm especially touchy on this. There's a hell of a lot of amazing knowledge we've ignored and forgotten. But on a larger scale, I'm irritated when people waste time reinventing the wheel instead of inventing something new. It's a waste!

To use the cliché, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

This, too. Is this really implying that historians don't repeat it, as well?

Of course we do. But we try not to, and feel vaguely sheepish when we do anyway.

[starlooker]

Keyboarding.

Seriously. I'm not saying I didn't get anything from my other classes, math, science, English, and even the egregious stereotypical public school history classes taught by 1) a coach who compared all historic events to stories about coaching basketball in Happy, Texas and 2) an honest-to-God narcoleptic old pervert a year away from retiring.

But keyboarding was far and away the most practical skill they could have taught me that is useful on a day-to-day basis.

[Young Val]

Call me old fashioned, but I think all of the basics are pretty useful and I definitely apply my knowledge of those subjects--however extensive or minimal it may be--on a daily basis.

English, math, science, history, and a foreign language. I'm grateful to have spent time studying all five.

[elfprince13]

Your usage of "new" is curious. To me, your argument sounds smilar to saying that nothing in science is new, because it was always just there for us to look at.

that's not at all what I'm saying. Science is based on inductive reasoning.

You also appear to assume mathematicians always work with the same set of premises and laws of reasoning. While that's true on the basic level of, say, modus ponens, mathematicians and logicians work in many different systems of logic, and create their own. The rules can be very different.

The laws of deduction however, remain the same. Higher mathematics is pretty much the only field where you can define the premises however you feel like defining them "to see what happens" and so in a lot of ways is less practical or useful than science, however, by definition, mathematical reasoning can not lead you to a conclusion that wasn't fully present in your premises.

Mathematics is the body of knowledge justified by deductive reasoning about abstract structures, starting from axioms and definitions.

Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, change, and related topics of pattern and form. Mathematicians seek out patterns whether found in numbers, space, natural science, computers, imaginary abstractions, or elsewhere. Mathematicians formulate new conjectures and establish their truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.

[steph]

In my line of work, Psychology is the most useful class I could have taken. (I love that my highschool offered psych. 2 levels of it, actually!) I use it every day in power struggles between me and my 3 and 1 1/2 year old sons.

[Eaquae Legit]

Call me old fashioned, but I think all of the basics are pretty useful and I definitely apply my knowledge of those subjects--however extensive or minimal it may be--on a daily basis.

English, math, science, history, and a foreign language. I'm grateful to have spent time studying all five.

No knowledge is ever wasted. I'm a strong believer in this. I don't regret one minute of calculus, chemistry, physics, cartography, astronomy, linguistics... even the course I took on Arthurian literature.

[elfprince13]

No knowledge is ever wasted. I'm a strong believer in this. I don't regret one minute of calculus, chemistry, physics, cartography, astronomy, linguistics... even the course I took on Arthurian literature.

I strongly agree with this, its the courses I've taken that didn't spend time teaching me new knowledge that I regret having taken.

[human.]

(I'm a chemistry girl, myself. Knowing how things work=awesome. And physics is kind of like applied math, right? That's your compromise!)

Awww... Can I adopt you as my student?

Please? I love it when people teach me new things!

Somewhat relating to this thread..

Suppose I'm aspiring to become a chemical engineer, though I'm not sure about where I'd like to specialize, are there any classes that would be really good for me to take? While I only have one year left in high school, there's still time enough to arrange my schedule in a more deliberate manner..

[Eaquae Legit]

As I understand it, a good chem eng program at the undergrad level will expose you to most of the different facets of what's involved. Especially if you can go to a university with a co-op or internship option. At the high school level, I don't know if there's much you can do except take classes in other science fields as well, so you have a background if you decide you like biochem, for example.

[Gravity Defier]

are there any classes that would be really good for me to take? While I only have one year left in high school, there's still time enough to arrange my schedule in a more deliberate manner..

In theory, your guidance counselor would be the person to ask; he/she would have a course catalog for your high school and any community colleges in your area. If you went through a community college, you should have not only more options but also the bonus of double credit (in most cases).

But, you know, it's high school. I think they're more focused on the basics (state tests) and less on pumping out engineers. In other words, what Ali said: undergrad programs, internship opportunities, etc. should do the trick.

[powerfulcheese04]

Suppose I'm aspiring to become a chemical engineer, though I'm not sure about where I'd like to specialize, are there any classes that would be really good for me to take? While I only have one year left in high school, there's still time enough to arrange my schedule in a more deliberate manner..

I have a degree in Bioengineering (which is basically an offshoot of chemical engineering. It started in ChemE and grew into it's own discipline.)

I would reccomend taking the highest possible level of Chemisty, Physics and Calculus in high school.

Otherwise, engineering programs are really good at structuring the programs to cover what you need.

One important thing to consider is to find a program with a variety of possible disciplines. For example, chemical engineering can do biomolecular engineering, petroleum engineering, material science type stuff, manufacturing type stuff. It'd be good to find a program with a broad range just to make sure you'll find the right sub-discipline.

(For example, the part of BIOE that I love is tissue culture and bacterial culture... my best BIOE-buddy loved bioinformatics (computer modeling of genomes and proteins)... we did end up designing a medical device that's in the patenting process.)

IF you want to talk about engineering, feel free to get in touch with me!

[human.]

Thanks, guys!

I've definitely been checking out the different undergrad programs as I search for colleges that I'm interested in applying to. I was just seeing whether there were anything I could do at this point, other than that. I'm finishing up Chem II this year, and I'll take Physics C/BC Calc next year to complete those at my school. Also, I attended a (very informational) engineering program this past summer, and there might be an engineering class at my school next year. We'll see!

Unfortunately my counselor isn't very counselor-y yet, as it's her first year in our school and we do things strangely.. Or so I hear. Plus, I have a phobia of people who can have a say in my academic future..

[zeroguy]

Why does it matter so much that people think their ideas are new when they are not? Because "someone is wrong on the internet"?

No, it's not just the interwubs and flame wars.

Well, I didn't just mean limiting to that. I was going for the general "someone's wrong on the internet!" idea, but expanded. How much of this just seems to be because someone just wants to correct someone else, and no other reason.

To use the cliché, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

This, too. Is this really implying that historians don't repeat it, as well?

Of course we do. But we try not to, and feel vaguely sheepish when we do anyway.

So why bother?

Your usage of "new" is curious. To me, your argument sounds smilar to saying that nothing in science is new, because it was always just there for us to look at.

that's not at all what I'm saying. Science is based on inductive reasoning.

I'm not sure you understood the meaning behind what I said. You say, "nothing in math is new because all conclusions are the logical result of applying axioms, theorems, etc". I'm saying, this seems rather similar to the statement (which you clearly did not say or imply) that "nothing in science is new because all conclusions are the logical result of rigorous experimentation, observation, and generally following the scientific method" or something like that.

So similar, that I fail to see the difference. If all mathematical conclusions will eventually reach some logical... uh, conclusion, so what? It still takes a hell of a lot of work to arrive at (some of) them. If something is unknown for a long time, and a discovery is made (say, fermat's last theorem, or P=?NP assuming we get it), how is that not "new"?

[elfprince13]

You say, "nothing in math is new because all conclusions are the logical result of applying axioms, theorems, etc". I'm saying, this seems rather similar to the statement (which you clearly did not say or imply) that "nothing in science is new because all conclusions are the logical result of rigorous experimentation, observation, and generally following the scientific method" or something like that.

The obvious difference, is that with science you can't ever prove something, only disprove it. Obviously certain phenomenon are taken as fact, but we still aren't even sure how accurate our working model of gravity is.

So similar, that I fail to see the difference. If all mathematical conclusions will eventually reach some logical... uh, conclusion, so what? It still takes a hell of a lot of work to arrive at (some of) them. If something is unknown for a long time, and a discovery is made (say, fermat's last theorem, or P=?NP assuming we get it), how is that not "new"?

Mathematicians may discover new things, yes, but not through mathematical reasoning, which was, I think, my original point. The new-ness is not introduced into the system through their reasoning, but through their creative premises.

[Rei]

Call me really old fashioned:

Grammar
Dialectic
Rhetoric

Arithmetic
Astronomy
Geometry
Music

[zeroguy]

The obvious difference, is that with science you can't ever prove something, only disprove it.

This isn't necessarily relevant to this discussion, but I'm not even sure what you're going for here. Example?

More relevant: I'm not sure what being able to prove things has to do with this. A proof is a mathematical/logical construct, so all you're really saying here is that they are incompatible in a certain way. A proof is just a tool to give justification for something being correct. Just like documentation of procedures followed, and... other sciency stuff, is.

Mathematicians may discover new things, yes, but not through mathematical reasoning

Hmm, simple example. "A" and "B" are facts. We know A and A->B. Someone knowledgeable of basic logic (and the notation I'm using) can see that we also know B. I say B is "new information" (and I'm not seeing how it's not), since it was previously unknown. It is still unknown if the person doesn't really know a lot about logical reasoning.

which was, I think, my original point.

Actually, I'm realizing I have no idea what your point is, or perhaps just not what it originally had to do with this thread.

[elfprince13]

Actually, I'm realizing I have no idea what your point is, or perhaps just not what it originally had to do with this thread.

...read the very first post in this topic....

[wigginboy]

Favourites would be English, History and Biology. Most important would be English and the Sciences. To me, Math is not important unless you are going to be a mathematician or a scientist. the only math I use on a regular day to day basis is the Math I learned prior to starting Junior High School. Anything beyond that, excepting simple algebra which is useful for finding unit cost, I really have no use for.

you're behind the times with the custom titles. :-p

I still do not understand this. Someone please enlighten me.

[CezeN]

In my opinion, when it comes to core classes that the average person, the common man will need (by average, I mean people that are becoming stuff like construction workers and mundane jobs like that, not the smart ones that decide to become brain surgeons and so) is English and Math.

It comes down to the basics. The basics of english are the a,b,c,z , while the basics of Math are the 1,2,3s. Communication and numbers are the basics needed to survive in society. You don't have to know how to test a theory. Money and talking with others are the most essential. And with math though, comes basic logic. Like I mentioned earlier, such as sharing money correctly. Traveling. Ect.

My real question is this, cant they cut the mandatary core classes to Math and English? Since core classes are core, because they are basics that the average man will need. While having science as extra electives, for the uncommon people who are trying to advance society, instead of just trying to get by paying bills and stuff?

[Gravity Defier]

I originally posted something else entirely but I'll just say this:

I am opposed to lowering standards for what is expected of students to learn/know as a minimum, whether or not that information will be useful outside of school on a day to day basis.


I think that's a huge part of the problem with education in parts of this country: the standards are continually getting lowered and curricula are getting watered down.

[neo-dragon]

And education is more than just job training, after all.

Since core classes are core, because they are basics that the average man will need. While having science as extra electives, for the uncommon people who are trying to advance society, instead of just trying to get by paying bills and stuff?

To quote myself:
"I do try to help my students realize that everyone needs some level of science literacy and understanding if for no other reason than to be able to make informed decisions on medical, environmental, and technology related issues"

Do you know how many kids walk into their first high school science class not knowing that plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and produce oxygen? Or that the Earth revolves around the sun!? Do you really think that in this day and age learning such things should be optional just because they don't help you pay the bills?

[human.]

Standards are definitely too low in some areas. In Texas, we have the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) test, which students grades 3 through 11 take, the final year being exit tests that students are required to pass in order to graduate. It consists of four parts: math, English, science and social studies (though some years students only take certain parts).

While I believe the entirety of the test is far too easy for students who are graduating high school to have trouble with, I can understand how the math, reading, and science parts help (social studies is simply "can you read this graph, cartoon, etc.?"). The writing portion of the English part consists of writing a short narrative and then answering three short answer questions over two passages.

If you look at students' scores on the short answer questions (possible 0, 1, 2, 3), the students who take higher level English courses tend to do worse. When teachers at my school inquired about this to a TAKS representative, they were told that students were writing too much and going into too much depth in analyzing the question. Students remain within the boxed limits of the writing space given to them, and they answer the question... yet it feels like we're being told to analyze less, to write less and give, what feels like to us, an incomplete answer.

[elfprince13]

I originally posted something else entirely but I'll just say this:

I am opposed to lowering standards for what is expected of students to learn/know as a minimum, whether or not that information will be useful outside of school on a day to day basis.


I think that's a huge part of the problem with education in parts of this country: the standards are continually getting lowered and curricula are getting watered down.

+5 Insightful. I basically gave up interest in the evaluation of all but a few my high school teachers after
a) My vocabulary, grammar and knowledge of literature exceeded that of my 9th grade English teacher (and 10th grade too, at least for the first two)
b) I received a D on two 15 page final papers in different science classes from the same teacher for, quote, "being too creative and not following the rubric" Until that point I had an A in both classes and the previous semester I scored the second highest grade in the school on the final exam for one of them.