text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
We talk about how parents are able to choose and pressure kids in a specific way. One, this is probably symmetric to some degree, but also I prefer parents do that over the traditional school curriculum that is centralized and things like that because the parents probably know more nuanced about what the kid specifically wants comparatively to a one-size-fits-all. So, even if the parents themselves have a big choice of what happens in a specific school, I think it's better. |
That being said, our case is firstly about why this is a better way of learning, and secondly, why kids are more engaged and interested. Why is this a better way of learning? The problem that we currently have is that we have a lot of lack of connections between different topics, and on our side of the house, this happens. This is going to be also building a world and painting a picture of how this likely happens. |
I understand what ions are from chemistry, but I don't connect them to the synaptic connections in the way that our brain works because I don't see that from the perspective of chemistry; I see that in biology. Three years later, I learn about geography, but I don't connect it to why it's important that I know why, specifically, Syria is there and how connected it is to specific areas. On our side of the house, this isn't true because if you cover specific topics in a holistic sense, you are able to connect them. You're also able to understand it in a better sense. |
Why is this important? This is important because this is generally going to facilitate a better ability for individuals to understand different topics, as in topics are not nuanced and are not new in the sense. Well, on a comparison, topics should be a more holistically approachable thing because that's just how it is—chemistry interacts, biology interacts, physics, and things like that. |
Why is it not likely that on a comparison people are, on the next side of the house, they're not going to be doing it in a holistic way? One is the impulse life, but two is the resources and the way that the education system is targeted towards the general education. I say the faculties, teachers teach to do it in a very specific way. There's a math teacher, there's a chemistry teacher, there's a biology teacher, and they don't have to interact with each other. They don't need to do these specific things. |
This also directly engages with the potential cases that come from classism and things like that, in so far as you only have resources for a specific math, which you're only going to buy. We're going to get that specific teacher. But if you have just general holistic teachers about sciences, general holistic teachers about social sciences, and things like that, you're able to have multiple teachers that have a more holistic way on a comparison. |
But also, the time is quite important, right? Because if I am a student and I have a lot of time that I already have to do my homework, I need to do so many things outside of things. This specifically targets poor kids, right? If I have that amount of time that I already need to put into school, I see no necessity for me, myself, to be educated in that in a more holistic way outside of school, right? This is exclusive and also present on our side of the house. I don't find the energy; I don't find the time. |
The impact of this is quite simple: people just get in better education because they have a better understanding of the holistic world that we are currently living in. Things do interact with each other, and you're able to remember them better. This is the second thing, right? Because it's not only the fact that things just are more holistic; the question is also my ability to remember things in the future. In so far as I forget things because the only pressure for me is to just ace that specific test, I'm probably not going to remember it in the long term. |
But if I connect them to different topics, if I connect them to how these things interact with each other, I'm much more likely to actually understand it. I'll take closing if you have anything. |
<poi> |
So we give you mechanisms like teachers are likely going to do this well, and it's not going to be boring for students. Can you please engage with those? |
</poi> |
Um, yes, sure. One, some teachers are good, some teachers are bad, quoting OG. But also, I think in so far as the students themselves are better at learning and learn things more, the teachers themselves that are passionate are going to recognize this to be more passionate as well. They're going to see this as more fun to them. |
Second argument about interesting things: school is quite demanding, and this is the characterization, right? I need to put a lot of time into it. I need to do a lot of these specific things. But very important—when you're later on, you're likely going to be very critical of school because of the fact that it's demanding. You have the ability to just go out with your friends, but you're forced to stay in school and things like that. |
When your teacher is explaining to you the Pythagorean theorem and never explains to you why it's useful in physics and things like that, why it doesn't connect to specific things and doesn't connect to your general identification, it probably means that the average individual is not going to be interested in the exact topics. The comparison is that on our side of the house, you are given the ability to connect to different things and are able to also understand it. |
The comparison on our side of the house is very simple: one, you feel more in control because you do the research; you think about specific things that actually happen. But two, you see why things are important. You see why things should be focused on, and this is also true for teachers, right? Because if you're passionate, if you buy the analysis coming from OG, by individual teachers, are willing to spend so much time to teach the next generation, there's likely going to feel disillusioned seeing kids day after day being disinterested in the very topics that they teach, the very topics that they feel passionate about. |
But this means that on our side of the house, if they're able to be more maneuverable and more inclined towards specific kids, it probably means that not only are they going to have the tools to be more engaging but also are going to be engaged in a very passionate way by themselves. This means that they themselves are going to turn into better teachers on our side of the house and therefore offer a better education. |
Lastly, as far as you feel a responsibility towards your own education, because you have the control to help you develop specific soft skills that otherwise you would not, as a researcher, even. This is very good because even if you research things in a very non-linear way, you still learn how to do the research itself, and anyone critical and learns the wrong things, you're still able to be yeah. OO |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
I want you to think of the first time you had to explain to your teammate in a debate about an IR case you didn't know about, about some random country you've first heard about, and how's the economy over there is going or how the people over there are doing. You're going to quickly see that that's probably how people are going to go in these classes and try to explain to their peers how things are going about. |
Subjects they don't know about in a way that they don't necessarily care about, because it might be within their area of specialization, but they don't care about each case study, especially if it's assigned to them by the teacher, rather than they be able to choose some things, right? Particularly, they be able to choose in physics, "I want to focus on how a spaceship works," or "I want to focus on how the rainbow works." If their teacher says, "You only have these two choices," and you're not that passionate about either of them, then you choose one, and you have to figure out how it works, and you have to explain it. That's kind of how this works, right? |
The problem is a couple of things with this, so I'm going to give you four clear reasons as to why the way I explain to you is better for these kids to learn than I'm going to weigh it off, and then I'm going to clarify whenever I've got things cool. |
One, I think because it's less confusing, it's better. I think the idea of compartmentalizing things by coping rather than having a holistic approach is better for you to be able to understand particular things about that. |
Right? So when I say this thing, like, "Me being in this room works like this because my body physically works like this," and then there's the emotional side of my psychology and how it affects me, and then there's the part about finances and how I was able to get here and everything. That's a lot of information, especially for a kid to process, right? |
And they say holistic is good because then they learn to have engaging stuff and so on, but what they don't engage with is that then they need to be able to understand general rules that take from all of these things and apply them to different cases as well. When they learn the human body works like this, and they say, "This is the biology part because this is the component in the body from there," and then, "This is the chemistry reaction that happens in your brain because that's the part," and then, "This is the physics of it because your brain is, I don't know, heavy or something," right? |
All of these things they need to be able to then compartmentalize that they have general rules. I think this is difficult for a kid to do, even if it may be desirable that they do it, right? Because they need to have example A, example B, example C, and they go on with all the letters of the alphabet until they understand that that's not just an isolated case, but that's an area of expertise that is a general rule that applies. |
And yes, the teacher might say it is, but note there's less time for the teachers to be able to themselves be able to explain these things, to be able to themselves be able to make the kids understand how these rules work and that they apply in multiple cases. So I think over time they might get their impact, but it's about how short-term and closer when you first explain these things the kids are able to get it. |
Why is this important? One, because of how they are able to understand the things and be interested in them. If I don't understand something from the get-go, especially kids with a shorter attention span and their one, a characteristic that might have different interests as well, they are likely to disengage with that topic and not want to learn further on, right? It has compounding interest impacts in the longer term if you don't understand from the get-go. |
Two, because you might be able to disengage with the topic as a whole. So you might say, "I don't like math because of the way that math was explained to me in this particular example of the spaceship because it was a too complicated equation for me to get." And instead of being open to the idea of learning general, simpler rules of math, you are closed to the idea just because that particular topic didn't interest you. |
I think this is more likely in kids because, again, as one characterized, they are impulsive; they don't compartmentalize things as well because they don't have abstract thinking, etc. Not on the comparative, you're likely to still be able to engage with simple, basic things first, right? When you start a general thing, you don't have to engage with the level of complexity of the weird example of the rainbows. If the law of physics in there is too complicated, you can start with the basic, "Here is how gravity works if "m * g." It's one simple, small equation, and that might be easier for kids to process. |
Second thing, I think depth and clarity are important, and this is all of one's mechanization on why teachers do this. Well, they say, "Oh, but there are good teachers and bad teachers," that's a strawman response. One, as case points to you, it's about how much the teachers are able to explain and how less reliance you have on the students explaining these things when they don't have the same capacity comparatively to be able to explain it well or they don't have the same passion comparatively to explain it to their peers. |
That creates a lot of trickle-down impacts. One, it's about how your exams are going to go, right? Because if you understand things somewhat comparatively less, you might have a worse PR, and margins matter in university choices. Margins matter a lot, particularly in high school choices, and how you rank fusions against each other, right? It’s so standardized; we should be able to see globally how the averages are and figure out if you are better off in a university in this country or if you are just below the threshold and you won't get there. If you don't have the good margins, you're not there. |
Two, I think it's about the stress levels of the kids. All that one that talks to you about social norms is not just symmetric, but it's about how the kids are able to then deal with that, right? It's not just about the influence of children's choices themselves, but it's about the kids knowing, "I feel certain enough that the way I'm handling the subject is good, that I understand what's going on, and that I will pass my exam." |
So it's a continuous impact throughout their school journey, but it's also a continuous impact in the long term when they are facing the exam. Do they feel like they have just isolated examples, or do they actually understand the equation? Because that is what will be asked of them, and they say, "Sure, they will teach it on their side as well." The comparative is how much time do you spend on teaching the standardized things that will be asked of you in the exam, and how certain are you that the way it was explained to you was clear because it was a teacher and not your colleague who didn't give a shit about it when they explained it to you? |
And so you are confused about whether or not it works this way or that way, and they had a muddy explanation. Closing, opening. |
<poi> |
Okay. Um, yes, sure, you can just start from the basic stuff, as you obviously don't give children the theory of relativity to learn about. You start with basic math concepts; you apply them to complex. |
</poi> |
Okay, cool, but maybe you don't—that's not competitive. |
First, four thing, no, fourth thing, why you should care about this more: I think standardized education makes it relatable, and I think this is important. Instead of having isolated cases of physics that you talk about with a student from another school that has a different teacher or with your parent as well, who went through the same education system, I think it's easier for you to be able to help each other with homework or to just understand that you're going through the same thing. Like, the tests are somewhat similar because you use similar textbooks that go through the same things, right? |
These things are comparatively more relatable, and that brings enjoyment and maybe capacity to build more friendships and also just have better connected learning outside of school as well, which tends to happen plenty when you have to in high school because there's pressure from your parents to be able to do well and to go to university. |
Why is all that we've told you most important in the debate? I think, one, because it's prior to any happiness in your life later on. This ties to your career choices and you feeling like you are sure of yourself. This ties to the margins of you getting into university. This ties into the margins of you being able to win stuff later. |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
So Arina brilliantly explains to you exactly the way that this is going to work. You first explain to the student the biology component, then you explain the chemistry component, then you explain the physics component, and you do it in an interconnected subject that does not need to differentiate between the different things but explain the application of these different subjects and the sub-subjects that you're talking about to the central issue of how Arina was able to stand here and deliver a good, although fairly dismissive, opening opposition speech. I do not understand why this is something that teachers are incapable of doing for the very reasons that opening government wants to give to you. |
Let's deal with the quality of education. Number one, the passion argument from applies. Anyways, that is to say teachers are probably anyways passionate and therefore able to explain these sort of things. They say, "Ah, but you have less time to do it because you're relying on students making Iraq presentations." Like, guys, this is just empirically untrue. A) There are external and societal reasons to not have children teaching other children about the way geopolitics works. Even if you make a child do a presentation, you presumably correct the errors that the child makes. You presumably intervene and tell the things that are done wrong, and it's unclear to me why this takes substantially less time than asking your children a question about what the quadratic formula is, getting a wrong answer, and then giving a response to that. |
B) I think children aren't stupid. I think they have the capacity to understand stuff, especially in later classes, especially when you're around 16, 17, 18. You have the capacity to understand these sort of things, and your presentation on Iraq won't say that it's in America. It's probably going to give generally correct facts that other people are able to learn. |
Three, if it is true that you're primarily learning from your peers, then I would argue it is easier for you to comprehend these sort of things. Like, if the argument they make is, "Ah, you start with two basic and two stupid things because it's other stupid children that are teaching you," it's also probably true that it's easier to comprehend these sort of things because there are more basic levels of grasping. Because it's your child peer that is explaining to you in language that they find useful, in colloquial language, they're going to use with them in interaction. |
They're going to flip their point on difficulty. I think as far as interactions between the children go and also the 20-second impact extension from Reid, that one, H, but you make more friends because you interact better. Because your textbook is the same, yeah, you're in the same class, you learn the same things. I would argue more so you learn them from your peers; you learn them from these kinds of interactions that you make. I'm going to impact this on the amount of interest, which is on the amount of quality. I think it's either symmetric or likely to be better. |
Number three, they say, "Ah, this knowledge is incredibly difficult and incomprehensible." Cool. Number one, school is a long-term process. I think when you have four years of high school in the vast majority of countries, it's unclear to me why first-year students at 14 are going to learn about the theory of relativity. I think you'd start with very basic concepts. My argument tells you this; there are external incentives, and there's a need to start with basic understandings of the subject in order to go into things that are applicable and more advanced. |
I think this happens on either side of the house where teachers have the capacity and incentive to do these sort of things. The question is whether these things are tangibly tied to something. What then is the debate about? I think, number one, it is going to be the quality of education that you're going to get from these sort of things. Why is this better on our house? Number one, the ability to have a holistic overview. Why is this crucially important? I want to impact the stuff that my say. |
I think number one, it's just the reason you want to know stuff is the capacity to apply stuff. Knowing stuff for the sake of knowing stuff is not particularly important for a couple of reasons. One, it's difficult to apply to exams that you're going to have in the future because the vast majority of university exams do not ask you what the quadratic formula is but ask you for specific application to these sort of things and the specific skills that you develop. |
The reasons for this are, you know, external societal reasons where on your job you don't write down formulas but you solve tasks and you do these kind of things. But it's also because a lot of university exams would otherwise be very easy to stupidly memorize. There's incentives to make you learn and go into the higher levels of learning, and this is something that you want to develop at a young age. This is a prerequisite to be able to do the sort of future stuff and connection to be. |
I think education is only important in so far as education tangibly contributes something to society. Right? There's no point in knowing a bunch of stuff if the stuff isn't something you're capable of applying. And I think that students cannot make these connections on their own. Why? It gives you a multitude of reasons, very little response. That's why there is no time, as why there's no incentive to do these sort of connections outside of the way that your teachers teach. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.