Vintage Things That Have Disappeared In Your Lifetime?

[jamespowers]

More likely the engineering geniuses of tomorrow will develop the world's, like, raddest holographic video game first.

As far as grasping calculus goes, I never had any trouble grasping it. I grasped it with my right hand, gave a firm toss, and it landed right in the wastebasket.

I use some of those equations to figure out things once in a while but rocket scientists use it far more than I do.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It is a different way to do calculations. They really didn't care about the answer when I had that crap. They were more concerned with process than actually getting a right answer. I am sure none of those people you mentioned were more concerned with process than with getting a useable and applicable answer.
Tesla isn't quite in the same league though. He was certifiable by today's standards. Hmmmmmm....maybe he would support New Math now that I think about it.....

Then there was a problem with your teacher, not the process. The right answer is CRITICAL in new math, or any other type, otherwise your rockets will be falling out of the sky and your buildings falling down.

Tesla was up there with Newton in terms of both genius and nuttiness.

 

[jamespowers]

Then there was a problem with your teacher, not the process. The right answer is CRITICAL in new math, or any other type, otherwise your rockets will be falling out of the sky and your buildings falling down.

Tesla was up there with Newton in terms of both genius and nuttiness.

Obviously you and I are talking about completely different things then. New Math here was just plain stupid. Now you have just as stupid a setup with Outcome Based Education. :doh: I am pretty sure you what you think of New Math wasn't here. Although, I am sur ehte teachers were a problem too as they didn't understand it any more than the students did as the book Why Johnny Can't do Math pointed out.

Tesla did get a bad deal with Radio though. He invented radio. Marconi just put the parts together---all of which were first patented by Tesla. lol Whatever the case, he won the court battle to prove it---posthumously. He also beat Westinghouse with AC current.

 

[Dragon Soldier]

Then there was a problem with your teacher, not the process. The right answer is CRITICAL in new math, or any other type, otherwise your rockets will be falling out of the sky and your buildings falling down.

Tesla was up there with Newton in terms of both genius and nuttiness.

Muuuh. I don't know.

Were I a savant, who when presented with a problem could visualise the correct solution immediately... I'll never pass a maths exam. Although I might be fast tracked straight to a "special" educational establishment. But I'll score zero on a paper.

By the same token, if I'm not that sharp at maths and am presented with a range of problems, showing that I have an understanding of the process involved in deriving the solution will get me marks. If I get the odd solution correct... I might even pass.

That's the difference between education (theory) and aerospace engineering (practice) and why rockets don't fall out the sky much (except in the area of Pyongyang)

 

[HudsonHawk]

He also beat Westinghouse with AC current.

You mean he beat Edison and DC current. Westinghouse was the one who licensed Tesla's AC.

On a side note, I had the experience of meeting and talking to one of the ten most brilliant scientists in the last 1,000 years, Linus Pauling. It was towards the end of his life, but he was a certifiable nutjob. Brilliant, but out there...I mean REALLY out there.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Muuuh. I don't know.

Were I a savant, who when presented with a problem could visualise the correct solution immediately... I'll never pass a maths exam. Although I might be fast tracked straight to a "special" educational establishment. But I'll score zero on a paper.

By the same token, if I'm not that sharp at maths and am presented with a range of problems, showing that I have an understanding of the process involved in deriving the solution will get me marks. If I get the odd solution correct... I might even pass.

That's the difference between education (theory) and aerospace engineering (practice) and why rockets don't fall out the sky much (except in the area of Pyongyang)

Rockets don't fall out of the sky because rocket scientists get the right answer. But the answer doesn't come from simple arithmetic. It requires much higher level math, which requires the use of the thought processes promoted in New Math, such as logarithms, getting rid of the notion that numbers are all in base 10, that geometry is not planar, moving frames of reference, etc. You have to not only be able to understand the theory, but also be able to do the math and get it absolutely spot on correct. It's a rare combination, which is why New Math was wildly unsuccessful when taught to the masses.

 

[jamespowers]

You mean he beat Edison and DC current. Westinghouse was the one who licensed Tesla's AC.

On a side note, I had the experience of meeting and talking to one of the ten most brilliant scientists in the last 1,000 years, Linus Pauling. It was towards the end of his life, but he was a certifiable nutjob. Brilliant, but out there...I mean REALLY out there.

Correct. It was Edison that he beat out and Westinghouse who went with Tesla. JP Morgan stupidly went with Edison.

 

[Dragon Soldier]

Rockets don't fall out of the sky because rocket scientists get the right answer. But the answer doesn't come from simple arithmetic. It requires much higher level math, which requires the use of the thought processes promoted in New Math, such as logarithms, getting rid of the notion that numbers are all in base 10, that geometry is not planar, moving frames of reference, etc. You have to not only be able to understand the theory, but also be able to do the math and get it absolutely spot on correct. It's a rare combination, which is why New Math was wildly unsuccessful when taught to the masses.

But the fact remains that in education one can receive kudos for arriving at an incorrect answer while showing an understanding of how the problem should be solved, while one may not for arriving at a correct answer without demonstrating the same understanding.

So while I wouldn't necessarily say that within education "the method is more important than the result", neither would I tell anyone who did say it that they were wrong.

My references to rocketry were flippant.

 

[jamespowers]

Rockets don't fall out of the sky because rocket scientists get the right answer. But the answer doesn't come from simple arithmetic. It requires much higher level math, which requires the use of the thought processes promoted in New Math, such as logarithms, getting rid of the notion that numbers are all in base 10, that geometry is not planar, moving frames of reference, etc. You have to not only be able to understand the theory, but also be able to do the math and get it absolutely spot on correct. It's a rare combination, which is why New Math was wildly unsuccessful when taught to the masses.

So, as you said before, certifiable nutjobs work well with it then.

 

[jamespowers]

But the fact remains that in education one can receive kudos for arriving at an incorrect answer while showing an understanding of how the problem should be solved, while one may not for arriving at a correct answer without demonstrating the same understanding.

So while I wouldn't necessarily say that within education "the method is more important than the result", neither would I tell anyone who did say it that they were wrong.

My references to rocketry were flippant.

I don't care what method they use as long as the answer is correct.

 

[Dragon Soldier]

I don't care what method they use as long as the answer is correct.

I take it you're not an educator?

I'm not saying that the method is more important here, simply that it's of academic value, or can be.

 

[vitanola]

Correct. It was Edison that he beat out and Westinghouse who went with Tesla. JP Morgan stupidly went with Edison.

Actually, Morgan funded Edison, and then took the Thompson-Houston company , with it's AC system, from a Boston banking syndicate led. By Gardinier Hubbard (of AT&T fame). He then pushed the Westinghouse interests to the wall, with the assistance of Andy Mellon. Tesla's grand gesture of giving up his royalty contract was done to allow George Westinghouse to avoid bankruptcy by selling partial control to Morgan interests. Shortly after this transfer of control was effected, the General Electric/Thompson-Houston combine and Westinghouse cross-licensed a large group patents, and neatly divided the heavy electrical industry between themselves, in an informal predecessor to the contractual 60/40 split enshrined after the creation of the Radio Corporation.

 

[sheeplady]

The issue that some people fail to understand is that teaching is not a "god given skill that everyone has" and a profession "everyone can do." Lot's of people think that teachers are just "born with" the skill of teaching not realizing the amount of work that goes into being and learning how to be a good teacher. There are individual traits that probably make someone a better teacher than another, but no one is a good teacher without work.

I have a distinct feeling that the reason why many "trends" in education fail is not that they aren't valid or couldn't have worked (because studies are often done before these changes are made so we know they work with students) but that the teachers weren't trained in the best way to educate using the new system. It's not enough to just teach a teacher how to do it, but also show them the best way to teach it, and give them time to develop their own teaching style of the new method. Even then, it's probably going to take a few years to iron out all the wrinkles as teachers test methods of teaching the new material. We're not talking added information here, we're talking about a whole new way of thinking about something.

I highly highly doubt (granted, I don't know) that the vast majority of teachers in the U.S. were given anything more than a cursory training in new math, despite being expected to teach it. I'd expect at least a couple of college-level classes required for such a shift (one to teach the new method in-depth as a refresher course, one on how to teach the new method, maybe even a third as a practicum). After all, we're talking about a major shift in thinking here. But I doubt a lot of teachers got more than a few hours education and I imagine some (particularly those in more rural or inner city areas) didn't even get that.

ETA: We're also talking about a time in education were you still had many states that had "grandfathered in" teachers who had no post-secondary education at all. These individuals were facing retirement relatively soon, but it's highly unlikely that these teachers had any experience with teaching or thinking about math in any way but the traditional one.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's a very good point. The teachers I had who got stuck teaching me "new math" were mostly teachers who had come into the profession before WWII. They were used to doing things the way they'd been doing it for thirty years before "new math" came along. They weren't young eager progressive types fresh out of school and raring to put the latest techniques to use -- they were middle-aged, small-town women looking longingly toward retirement and just wanting to keep going a few more years until they could get there. They were used to teaching kids who grew up to be fish canners, chicken gutters, and mill hands, not rocket scientists, and that wasn't going to change overnight.

As far as I know, not a single member of my high school graduating class went on to become a rocket scientist. I think there's a civil engineer in there, and a technician for the Department of Environmental Protection, but that was about it for the sciences. Most of us grew up to be ordinary people doing ordinary things -- and new math is just a bad generational memory.

 

[HudsonHawk]

But the fact remains that in education one can receive kudos for arriving at an incorrect answer while showing an understanding of how the problem should be solved, while one may not for arriving at a correct answer without demonstrating the same understanding.

Not in any education I've ever seen.

So while I wouldn't necessarily say that within education "the method is more important than the result", neither would I tell anyone who did say it that they were wrong.

I would. In science and math, the correct answer is the whole point.

 

[Dragon Soldier]

Not in any education I've ever seen.



I would. In science and math, the correct answer is the whole point.

It simply isn't.

To use the most extreme example, what of a case where no "answer" exists?

 

[HudsonHawk]

I highly highly doubt (granted, I don't know) that the vast majority of teachers in the U.S. were given anything more than a cursory training in new math, despite being expected to teach it. I'd expect at least a couple of college-level classes required for such a shift (one to teach the new method in-depth as a refresher course, one on how to teach the new method, maybe even a third as a practicum). After all, we're talking about a major shift in thinking here. But I doubt a lot of teachers got more than a few hours education and I imagine some (particularly those in more rural or inner city areas) didn't even get that.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Teachers were asked to teach something they didn't really understand themselves. Not only were they ill equipped to teach the subject, but they probably pretty cynical about the change, which makes for a disastrous combination.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It simply isn't.

To use the most extreme example, what of a case where no "answer" exists?

There is no such case. There is an "answer" for everything. We may not know it yet, but there it's there.

 

[Dragon Soldier]

Or to use another example then

A maths paper has ten problems requiring a solution for Y.

Present a set of solutions which has ten correct values for Y and nothing else and you will fail. In fact you won't be graded.
Present a set of solutions where you have some, perhaps many, incorrect but demonstrate that you have understood the problems and the method of resolving and you may pass.

 

[sheeplady]

In the 1930s, NY moved towards required education of all teachers at the "college level" so teachers were offered to have their "teaching years" count essentially as a bachelors and masters degree or they could go to college and "specialize." Most teachers choose to be grandfathered in, particularly in rural and inner city areas where there were no close colleges and no funds to send the teachers on for education. Even if you chose to *not* be grandfathered in, you were typically sent for a specialized master's degree. Prior to this point, most "post-secondary" educated teachers had attended normal schools, most of which were 2 years and covered a breadth of teaching. Many teachers, however, had only completed high school.

By the time the boomers were born, lots of teachers would have been facing retirement. The generation following WWII was extremely small and therefore hadn't produced as many teachers as the WWII generation. However, the boomer generation required so so many teachers that a lot of these individuals stayed on much much longer than they normally would have before retirement. The demand for teachers was so great that many schools who had previously had "unwritten" policies that they didn't employ married women with children began keeping even new mothers on as teachers because the demand was so high. The same with "older" teachers that previously would have been encouraged to retire.

My grandmother was a perfect example of this. She started teaching at 16 after she finished high school in a one-room school house. I believe that this was in 1924 or so and she taught in a 4-room school. In the 1930s, she was offered to be grandfathered in, but she chose to go to school. In less than two years she earned a BA and a M.Ed. in special education (obviously, most of her course work was in special education and her teaching years counted for a lot). She then went on to teach until 1947, when she had twins. Around 1950, she was asked to return to work and taught until the early 1970s. She wasn't uncommon; and she was told she couldn't retire until they had a replacement for her. There was a huge shortage of teachers.

The common retirement age for teachers prior to the boomers was 50 to 55 (at the oldest). During the boomer years, that was often pushed into the mid to late 60s.

I imagine being told "you're going to teach this new way of doing math," having zero exposure to it previously, being given next to no education on it, and having taught the old way for almost 4 or 5 decades, some individuals being burnt out from teaching that long and being close to retirement, really was the perfect scenario for failure. That and the people who are the most well-versed in it, younger teachers, have little practical teaching experience (that and there are so few "younger" teachers because the generation that would have produced teachers for the boomers was so small). You basically have two groups of subject matter experts: one on the method, one on how to teach. With no overlap between. And the vast majority of individuals who were teaching (older teachers from the WWII generation) likely hadn't even been exposed to many mathematical concepts beyond what they learned in high school and that was decades ago.

Disaster waiting to happen.