Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Khan Academy isn't smart. (Score 0) 243

Khan Academy isn't smart. I watched one of their "courses" on moments of inertia. It's a colored etch-a-sketch of someone writing, with voiceovers. There were major factual errors and wrong signs. It's low-budget content with no proofreading or editing. Subjecting kids to that is just wrong.

If we're going to have have massive online courses, the quality needs to come up to at least History Channel level.

Comment Re:Coin laundry (Score 1) 338

if you don't have a laundromat very close by, then you're looking at extra time to drive there.

I'll grant that it's not the best option for rural dwellers.

In addition, now you have to sit there that whole time so you can transfer the wet clothes to the dryers.

I bring a device on which to browse Slashdot and Cracked and edit All The Tropes. Others may bring an electronic or paper book. But because more than one load runs at once, the total time spent babysitting loads is less.

Comment Re:Do the math (Score 1) 338

Why do you actually care how much time your washing machine uses?

Because although you can do other things while it runs, you really can't just take off and go about your day (Ever had an unbalanced washer shake itself loose of the drain hookup? Not a pretty sight). So if you have four or five loads to do on a typical Saturday, at one hour per load it means getting out of the house by noon to enjoy the day; at 2.5 hours per load, it effectively kills your entire day.

Comment Still not adding up (Score 1, Interesting) 243

If this is true, why do psychologists continue to focus so much on IQ? Why do they insist there is a strong, undeniable link between IQ and success that must be catered to? Why has funding for students who, as they say, "are merely bright, but not gifted" entirely disappeared in favor of a fully mainstream approach? Why are the hard working students who achieve but who are not obvious savants lumped in with the merely average, and worst, the probably hopeless (whatever the reason)?

Is this real science, or feel good "also-ran" science for the ignorant and unspecial, as one might be led to believe if one actually believed psychology was anything like actual science? We all want to believe articles like this are true, IQ is a bitter pill to swallow and one that seems even murkier the more one reads about it, however it represents our cultures mindset towards success. No company wants a merely bright hard-working person, they want a genius, they worship that genius. Give an academic institution a test, and they will run off with the truly exceptional students (the SATs allegedly correlate to IQ at 0.82, so they actually DO this). Give a corporation that test and they'll probably rather do without than hire anyone with an IQ below 120, which of course, represents the majority of people.

I prefer to believe what is in this article in the same way that I prefer to believe in Free Will, but, however disappointing this may be, this does not reflect the prevailing attitudes of people that matter. Nothing in this article is substantial enough to use as a weapon to change education, and ultimately it's just feel good drivel, much like I think the IQ studies to date are, although sadly they represent the established convention. From a magazine like Scientific American I want something I can USE to make change.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...