When you discover you're not particularly good at that thing, I don't believe there is a need to continue trying.
For example, when you discover you're not good at arguing, you may consider sticking to math.
Wow. Ok. I agree that we are just going to have to agree to disagree because this statement blows me away. I agree that not everything can be amazing at everything...but wow. So for example, if my kid isn't innately good at swimming, I should just let her give up even though knowing how to swim is a safety issue and life skill? There are many life skills that are important for people to know the basics of, regardless of innate ability. (One of which is perseverance, not quitting just because something is hard).
And your last statement has me surprised. You are not normally a snarky person.
No, of course you don't stop learning to swim. You learn until you're able to swim, but, if you're not naturally good at it, I see no reason to put in 10,000 hours to get better beyond basic proficiency. I think those hours would be more fruitfully spent on things at which you could actually excel.
Re the last statement, well, I don't think it surprises that many. It's in me. It just comes out less often these days. It takes a certain level of frustration to unveil it now.
Post by sparkythelawyer on Oct 21, 2014 12:11:21 GMT -5
My HS years would have been much less turbulent if my educators could have just accepted that I was never going to excel at Math. Ever.
I look at that problem in the OP, and just increased the fund I will need to pay for tutoring for Lil' Sparky someday, because I'm not even about to touch that.
I'm bad at math. I struggled with in until grade 11 when I didn't have to take it anymore. I dropped it like a hot potato. I could have kept taking it, but that would have meant a continued struggle with something I knew I would not be pursuing a career in. I was able to focus my attention on things that have benefitted me more.
No, you are putting words in my mouth -- words I neither uttered nor implied.
The faulty extrapolation and misguided conclusions you people are reaching are impressive.
I am not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking you a question. You are putting words in MY mouth. I'm not saying you said that. I'm asking. Hence the question. That is the point of asking questions...to clarify. Because I am not sure what you are saying, and you are avoiding the question I've asked twice.
No, you are putting words in my mouth -- words I neither uttered nor implied.
The faulty extrapolation and misguided conclusions you people are reaching are impressive.
It's absolutely impressive. You should just leave, you're not going to learn anything, since you think teachers are pointless.
Math teachers are super defensive. I did not know this.
Nope. I'm not. I'm asking her to clarify. I actually am ok if she thinks that. Trust me, when you are a middle school teacher you are used to people thinking you are useless or a moron I'm surrounded daily by preteens.
I'm just trying to figure out what she is attempting to say.
Wow. Ok. I agree that we are just going to have to agree to disagree because this statement blows me away. I agree that not everything can be amazing at everything...but wow. So for example, if my kid isn't innately good at swimming, I should just let her give up even though knowing how to swim is a safety issue and life skill? There are many life skills that are important for people to know the basics of, regardless of innate ability. (One of which is perseverance, not quitting just because something is hard).
And your last statement has me surprised. You are not normally a snarky person.
No, of course you don't stop learning to swim. You learn until you're able to swim, but, if you're not naturally good at it, I see no reason to put in 10,000 hours to get better beyond basic proficiency. I think those hours would be more fruitfully spent on things at which you could actually excel.
Re the last statement, well, I don't think it surprises that many. It's in me. It just comes out less often these days. It takes a certain level of frustration to unveil it now.
But a lot of these skills we are talking about ARE basic proficiency skills. Hence the confusion.
Thank you for clarifying that. My issue was with your broad statements. Now that you clarified I understand that you just meant that you have a line you draw at which people no longer need to learn math if it isn't easy. I agree to some extent, but we likely disagree about where that line is.
But your original statements were broad. And many of the things we are talking about are basic skills.
I completely agree that you are a good debater. But attacking people for questioning your broad statements but insinuating we lack the ability to think logically isn't really accurate or fair.
I apologize if I appear defensive. I promise I am not.
Here's my anecdote. We were doing similar math last night with my son and he and my husband (both naturally good at math) were annoyed with the worksheet because they already knew the answer. I was always a bright student and in AP and Honors classes for all subjects but math and science subjects were ones that did not come naturally to me and I had to work at it.
Last night, I immediately understood what the worksheet was asking him to do and it was super easy for me to do it and do it quickly. So I guess I see the benefit in teaching different methods and expecting the kids to understand and be able to do them all. I told Jackson last night - when he has a choice he should do it the way he prefers but he has to demonstrate he understands these other methods and can use them. I don't think that's unreasonable or a waste of time. One of the methods may make sense and work better for a more difficult math problem compared to the ones that he can easily do in his head and when that time comes he'd have the ability to use those skills.