President Obama Is Looking To Extend The School Year

BDesvignes said:
Spell check and the internet have made knowing how to do simple things...unimportant. People don't have to know how to do everything.

I think that's the saddest comment I've ever read.

What do I gain from being able to convert temperatures in my head? Absolutly nothing. There's nothing complex about it. It's a simple thing that's not important. Instead of trying to learn how to convert temperatures in my head I can spend my time doing other things because if I ever need to I can just google it.

You gain intelligence, knowledge - a skill.

Because there's a HUGE difference between information and intelligence - all the tools you rely on can tell you what, but not why. They provide information, but not knowledge.

That's why we still teach kids to add, subtract, multiply and divide even though calculators have been around for ages.

That's why we still teach the alphabet and phonics even though we have spell check.

Pretty much what Gator was saying.

I suspect it's the modern version of the old 'teach a man to fish' thing...and possibly a symptom of the 'end result is all that matters' mentality that seems to be accepted anymore.

Then again, I've always been a stickler for people understanding the 'why' not just the 'what' - I think schools teach 'what' way too often anymore when they should be teaching 'why'

Gonch, I do agree with you on teching more of the "why," in education.

"Why does X cause Y? Can be VERY powerful in exploration.

"Why would you build a wood coaster versus steel?" A question like that can lead you in many different directions.

You don't need to be able to convert temperatures in your head, or for that matter do any simple math. Spelling is a useful skill, since you have to at least get close for the computer to be able to tell what word you want, and it is vital that you have a decent vocabulary. Grammar is also important for communication unless you want to sound as ignorant in person as you look in an online discussion forum.

Simple math isn't something you need to be able to do. But it IS something you need to know HOW to do. If you seldom have to add up a bunch of sums, there is no shame in having to grab pencil and paper or even a calculator to get the right result. But even with the tools that will do the work for you, you need to know how to do it yourself. If only because knowing how to do it yourself gives you the operational model required to know when you're going to need to do it! In another thread we talked about doing capacity calculations on a ride. I almost always need a calculator to do those because it involves dividing 3,600 by some number, and then multiplying by some equally inconvenient number (usually a multiple of four or six). I use a calculator to do that work for me. But the reason I know what to put into the calculator is that I understand what I am measuring, how those quantities relate to one another, and how that gives me the result that I want. That means I have to know how to multiply, divide, add and subtract. I have to know how those processes work in order to know how to correctly apply those processes to the operation for which I want a solution.

In some ways that's actually more difficult than simply knowing how to add and subtract, multiply and divide. There's another layer of abstraction there and that confuses some people. :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Clearly, "more" school isn't going to make a difference if you can't even explain why learning is important. Seomthing much earlier, much more fundamentally "hard-wired" is at play. I think I'll go back to the "blame the parents" rubric that was working so well for so long.

Seriously, when you're working at WalMart and you ring up the $20 the customer handed you, only to have them hand over another eighteen cents, what then? "Ummm, I'm gonna need a manager" :)

What do I gain from being able to convert temperatures in my head?

I find it useful whenever I'm looking at a weather forecast while traveling, as it seems nearly every other country in the universe uses C.

I mean, I suppose I can go open my laptop, wait for it to connect to the network, etc. Or, I suppose "there's an app for that." But, it's just easier to hear "18 degrees" and think "maybe the long sleeves, but might not need the sweater."

Yes it's a useful skill like being able to change your own oil, but not being able to isn't a big deal. It certaintly isn't a measure of a good education or one's intelligence though.

American Tourist in England: What's the weather going to be like today?
British person: The high temperature will be close to 30 degrees.
ATiE: Wow, I better wear my parka to Alton Towers today!

But seriously, about having spell check and a calculator do everything for you-- it's become a running joke in here how many people's posts are saying "defiantly" when they intended to say "definitely." But spell check said "defiantly" so it must be right. If you use a calculator, but don't have the slightest understanding of how to set up the problem, how do you know whether you're supposed to push the + or X key? If you don't understand the concepts of the simple things, you'll never grasp anything more complicated.

There are a lot of people in the world who will twist words and numbers in order to sell you their product, get your vote, or whatever. If you take everything they say at face value, or have no idea when you're being BSed, you'll be fleeced every time. If you have no idea you're being taken across, you'll have no idea how much you're being taken across for.

OT aside:

Somehow we got onto the subject of temperature, and of all the things to measure in multiple scales, it's the one where the selection of scale is probably least important to most people so long as you understand which scale you're using.

The interesting and tricky bit is that the Fahrenheit scale is, in fact, 80% *more precise* than the Celsius scale. That is to say, a temperature spread of 100 degrees Celsius is equal to a temperature spread of 180 degrees Fahrenheit.

Mostly just an observation...not really something to get into a heated debate about. :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr

BDesvignes said:
Yes it's a useful skill like being able to change your own oil, but not being able to isn't a big deal. It certaintly isn't a measure of a good education or one's intelligence though.

There are plenty of useful things that everybody should know, and they don't teach most of that in school.

For example, how to figure out directions without a GPS. Heck, I've driven halfway across the USA without a GPS. I just need a local street map from the closest major road.

How to safely change a tire, is another good one. How to use basic powertools (drill, circular saw, chain saw). How to back up a trailer and how to drive a stick shift. How to jump start a car.

Can I go on?

Dave: only if you refuse to use a decimal point. Even so, "low 60s" is all you need to know in F terms. The difference between 62 and 63 isn't going to make a big difference to most folks.

Saw this article and thought of this thread:

Despite millions of job seekers, many positions sit open

What's struck me is the examples they give seem to be more about job experience than college education. They're getting people with college degrees, but they want/need people with relevant experience.

I don't really have a point, but reading that article made me think of this thread.

^So many position demand a specific certification, or familiarity with a specific software package. My thinking is "if I was able to learn Wordperfect, Word, QuattroPro, Excel, SQL, and a million other packages that serve similar purposes, what good does it do you to hire someone else who has no knowledge of your business but does have very limited skill in dealing with, say, database design and structure"?

Every job I look at seems to demand a specific software package, but I've never seen a position description that said "knowledgeable about X"....

Gonch, interesting article. I think it touches upon the conundrum that many looking for work face. I can't work here until I have experience, but I can't get experience unless someone lets me work for them.

Sometimes you can find an entry level position where the employer is willing (and may even prefer to) mentor an inexperienced, otherwise marketable employee. But many have found the need to pursue college internships to try to get ahead of the experiential curve.

Gator, I agree completely. We have had many discussions lately at my workplace about whether it is "easier" to teach technology to someone with functional experience or to teach functional experience to someone with a background in technology. I certainly have my bias on that.

But in reality, I think all of the above is wrong. With the exception of specific employment fields, I think spending time worrying about specific experience or specific topical education is a waste of time.

There are fundamental skill sets that good employees should have, like problem solving, critical thinking, ambition, communication skills, etc. Those are the metrics that should be used for employment. The rest generally falls into place, provided the place of employment has a little bit of organization.

Carrie, I've been looking for a job for about 6 months now. I've got a CDL-A (I can drive a tractor trailer rig), but I don't have enough experience for most of the positions out there. Either that or I'm overqualified to drive a stright truck. Either that, or the job requires a tanker endorsement. I can't get that unless a company sponsors me.

On the other side of things, I've worked about three years in retail and doing other customer service.

I feel like I'm in a catch-22.

The only good news is that the local ski areas are starting to hire.

Carrie M. said:
With the exception of specific employment fields, I think spending time worrying about specific experience or specific topical education is a waste of time.

There are fundamental skill sets that good employees should have, like problem solving, critical thinking, ambition, communication skills, etc. Those are the metrics that should be used for employment. The rest generally falls into place, provided the place of employment has a little bit of organization.

Interesting, but I think those things (problem solving, ciritcal thinking, etc) are assumed requirements (who's looking for an employee without those skills? :) ) and is the reason for the interview process.

The point is they want someone with all of those things and relevant, topical experience. (or education to a lesser degree based on the story)

Which, I suppose, leads me full circle (and I don't want to start the debate again) to wonder why college is seen as such a necessity in this process. Seems like little more than a vague prequalifier that says you are possibly more likely to have those problem solving/critical thinking/etc skills.

Oh, you would be surprised how many idiots gets hired into various positions merely because their resume indicates they have experience. Meanwhile, they can't problem solve their way out of a brown paper bag. I don't think many people interview in a way that gets them to the place of measuring those things. It's just so much easier to quantify previous experience.

I think the college education is the given and that's why it's not mentioned in the article actually. :)

And yeah, the debate is pointless really. You either value higher education or you don't. But if that is the metric that's used for the position you want, then you better get on board with it, despite how it makes you feel. :)

RideMan said:

The interesting and tricky bit is that the Fahrenheit scale is, in fact, 80% *more precise* than the Celsius scale. That is to say, a temperature spread of 100 degrees Celsius is equal to a temperature spread of 180 degrees Fahrenheit.

--Dave Althoff, Jr

I sign off on most of your RC knowledg there Dave, but I disagree with the precise commentary, at least how you present it. Are you saying because the range appears larger that F is much more precise than C?

Yeah sure when you remove the decimal place I suppose it is.. But I wouldnt call Pi more precise because you say 3 vs 3.1415926535897932384626433 and so on..

Precise is measure how close you can get to the real value.. Not the "range" it exists in. Its like saying miles is more precise than kilometers.

I thought where Dave was "going" with that is that *C is frequently/normally presented to the first decimal, whereas *F is normally shown with no decimals...

As always, I reserve the right to be wrong... :)