Well said Mike, The problem with all of these dudes is that they only want to spend the money to develop one part of the human psyche not realizing that they are all connected. There are even brain neurons in the gut, i.e. "thinking with the gut". They are too cheap to train the whole person and so they cry when their mutants are inhuman or worse incompetant. Its too boring for words. I'm very excited and busy at the moment so I don't have much patience to play.
Gail, I have to take a rain check on your good article but I will get back to it and the Magic Circle Opera Network. Or a Chamber Opera Center in every city of 100,000 or more citizens. And yes I do know a lot about not-for-profits since I have been one for 22 years and am currently writing a proposal for a second. Regards Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:37 AM Subject: RE: Being treated with contempt > I don't know about "standards" in the "hard sciences" and math but I think > the issue of standards overall is quite misplaced. > > Standards at least as presented below or by the back to the basics crew > refers to a highly individualized approach to knowledge and learning. > > In fact, most current approaches and particularly those that are linked into > broad concerns for national innovation and productivity are recognizing that > knowledge and learning are highly contextual and even more so when they are > looked at in relation to their application rather than their "inculcation". > > Nobody (well almost nobody) learns alone (just as nobody works alone or > "innovates" alone) and those who do are generally understood to suffer the > consequences. > > Knowledge is in its essence collaborative (the creation/re-creation of > meaning) so to attempt to impose highly individualized standards as > operationalized in formal tests makes about as much sense as attempting to > hold back the dikes of plagiarism now that we have a Google (whoops that's > another but overlapping set of Canutes)... > > Mike Gurstein > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: February 13, 2002 7:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Being treated with contempt > > > It is a paradox that the developed countries, with increasing needs for > doctors, scientists, engineers, mathematicians and suchlike, are > increasingly less able to supply them in sufficient numbers as the years go > by. That's why several countries, particularly America and England (but > also France and Germany, and perhaps Canada for all I know), are having to > import increasing numbers of these valuable specialists from abroad, > usually from less developed countries -- which, of course, become even more > deprived of the skilled human resources they badly need for themselves. > > At the same time, governments in developed countries are pretending that > they themselves are increasing the supply of specialists from their own > education systems. To help persuade more schoolchildren to move away from > arts and general subjects, exam boards in those countries have been > steadily reducing the difficulty of the science examinations needed for > university entrance. A corollary of this is that examination results have > seemed to have improved steadily over the years -- attributed to "higher > quality teaching". > > Anybody like me who dares to say that the standards have, in fact, declined > enormously over their lifetimes are jumped on from a great height by > teaching unions, politicians, exam boards and others who are professionally > involved in the business. > > Indeed (as will be seen below), the educational professionals say we are to > "be treated with contempt" > > There's a huge amount of "spin" involved here. I reckon that for every > critical article that appears in a newspaper then at least four or five > times more exposure is given to presentations which suggest that all is > going swimmingly. This reassuring news is all too readily accepted by large > numbers of school teachers, children and their parents. Of course, the > grounds for saying that standards are improving are never tested > scientifically. > > However, in his own modest way, one university physics lecturer has done so > in this country and some FWers might be interested in an article of his > which appeared in today's Daily Telegraph: > > <<<< > FIGURES THAT JUST DON'T ADD UP > David Milstead > > As a lecturer in physics, I know there is no such thing as a paradox -- > only apparent paradoxes that can always be explained by a careful > examination of the whole problem. Applying this philosophy, we tackled an > educational paradox within our department. How is it that incoming > undergraduates have better qualifications but seem to know less than in > previous years? > > A[dvanced]-level pass rates in physics and maths have risen almost > continuously for more than a decade. Teachers' unions and the Government > attribute this to improved teaching and more assiduous pupils. Reports from > the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (CQA), the quango that monitors > school examinations, deny any dumbing down. > > Such reassurances sit uneasily with the "support maths" courses that now > feature in most physics and engineering degrees. Degrees have also had to > be extended to four years to cope with ill-prepared students and maintain > academic standards. We investigated whether a less demanding physics > A-level could be responsible for any of this. The QCA check standards of > examinations by asking professionals to make judgements on question > difficulty. We chose a much less subjective approach and set our > undergraduates special tests. We also analysed the changing mathematical > content of the questions. > > The usual smikescreen put up by the CQA is to complain that syllabus > changes make a comparison over time difficult. Developments have taken > place in physics in recent years that are now rightly in the A-level > syllabus. However, these are largely peripheral, and the bulk of the > subject has remained unchanged for many years. > > To ensure comparability we focused mainly on core areas of physics. Topics > such as Newton's laws and electricity and magnetism remain at the heart of > the physics A-level. The standard of the examination cannot but depend on > their treatment. > > A-level papers of one of the largest exam boards were selected. These dated > from 1983 to the present day. The most striking fact was the purging of > maths. The average number of mathematical steps needed to answer a question > was constant at about four until the early 1990s. Two mathematical steps > are typically needed now. Remaining marks are awarded for hand-waving > explanations of physicla phenomena (much like the old O[rdinary]-level, in > fact). > > This may not seem such a terrible development. However, dexterity in maths > is central to understanding physics. Newton would be remembered as a > speculative philosophy if his only contribution was noting that a force > called gravity pulled an apple to earth. Fortunately for mankind he was > also a great mathematician. His laws of motion allow us to calculate the > speed and trajectory of the apocryphal apple that hit his head. They are > also used to send interplanetary probes with pinpoint accuracy across vast > areas of space. without maths, physics loses its rigour and much of its > usefulness. > > We mneasure the difficulty of the new, reduced-maths physics A-level with > class tests. Assurances of anonymity and a raffled bottle of wine pesuaded > 55 first-year physics students to take part. Older (pre-1992) and more > recent (post-1997) questions were selected. Both sets of questions covered > the same topics and required the same basic knowledge. Scores were on > average 1.6 times higher for the recent questions. > > We also repeated the exercise with second year students. As expected, they > performed much better overall, although even they managed the older > questions less well. It is hard not to conclude that teh questions are not > as difficult as they used to be. This contradicts the official teachers' > union line. David Hart of the National Association of Head Teachers > believes that doubters like me, the Institute of Directors and anybody else > daring to state the obvious should be "treated with contempt". > > QWe inverstigated whether these opinions were shared on the front line. A > questionnaire on the changing nature of A-level physics was completed by a > representative sample of 72 physics teachers in the North-West. Mr Hart > must think that 60% of these teachers contemptible. They said thaty less > demanding questions were the most significianbt factor in the rise in pass > rates. Only 10% attributed the rise to better teaching. In addition only > 40% of teachers thought that the brightest pupils were still being > challenged. > > On balance, I think we resolved the paradox posed at the start of this > article. The physics A-level is not what it used to be. > >>>>> > Copyright Daily Telegraph 13 February 2002 > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in > order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow > _________________________________________________ > Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________ > >
