Hacker News Reader

Comment by yerich | Hacker News Reader

Much of this seems like rote memorization, to which I see very little use for in today's society. Need to get a list of state capitals? Google it. Need to plot a naval route from England to Malaysia? Look at a map. Students do not need a teacher nor a classroom to memorize facts. The time is better spent on developing problem solving and teamwork skills. Note the lack of any room for original expression or thought - no essays, no argumentation. Just rote memorization which will likely have no real use 99% of the time.

View on HN

Facts are the building blocks of argument. One shouldn't expect an 8th grader in 1912 or 2013 to have particularly well-developed arguments until they understand basic facts. You might think "rote memorization" has little value, but I have to disagree with that here. We're not talking memorization of mathematical theorem without proving them. We're talking about having a rather basic understanding of the world in a handful of subjects.

Yes it's easy to look at a map if you're unsure which countries border Turkey. It's much easier to remember which countries border Turkey if you've studied geography, which allows you to move on from looking up the basics every time so that you can have a deeper understanding of the subject.

Nit: You can't, by definition, prove an axiom. Memorizing axioms is quite necessary because they are the building blocks for all other theorems.

In any case, I don't disagree with your high-level point.

Oops. My bad. I fixed it. Thanks.

Honestly, as someone who grew up looking this up on Wikipedia, my ability to base an argument on credible sources has suffered immensely. Often, I want to make a point, and when I try to back it up I go through the "Did I read this on a reputable website, and if yes, what was the link".

Or in total internet manier:

   Source: Myself.

But how important is it to form an argument on the spot based only on the facts you have memorized? Sure, it's valuable for things like competitive debate, extemporaneous speaking, pub trivia, and perhaps some unfortunate job interviews, but if I had to pick, I'd rather everyone be better at doing a bit of research and taking their time forming an argument.

Let's take an example from everyday life. Someone see an ad online, for a big discount on an hotel stay in south east Turkey. If you have no idea on the spot that you'll likely be close to the syrian border in might look like a good idea on first examination.

That might be a prejudice on my part, but I think that someone, who does not know some geographical facts is the less likely to look thoroughly at a map before planning a journey.

I'm not really talking about on the spot knowledge, though. After awhile, you should just know things. If every time you sat down to write a program, you had to look up the definition of a variable, you'd be in for quite a difficult time.

Some knowledge, like history or literature or even science outside of your field, doesn't really have an apparent application. I'm not really arguing against applied knowledge, but I'm saying that personal edification is a very good thing. Connections pop up in the strangest ways. In fact, I'd argue that without a degree of memorization, research skills will be lacking in most people, as they wouldn't have a clue where to begin.

To carry what zecho was saying, at what point does it become ridiculous? Everyone has a calculator in their pocket, should we stop worrying about teaching addition? You chose to use the extreme items that get memorized, but there where is the 'fine line' of things to memorize?

"Students do not need a teacher nor a classroom to memorize facts."

You are half-right here, the problem is, if we get rid of the teacher, how do you encourage the student to memorize boring rhetoric like math or reading comprehension? The teacher is also there to 'force' you to put down your toys/electronics and work. Doing your up-teenth geography homework question is a lot harder when there is no enforcement and all your friends are on Call of Duty. Teachers help teach discipline.

The poem by Taylor Mali "What does a teacher make?" (http://zenpencils.com/comic/124-taylor-mali-what-teachers-ma...) sort of touches on this too.

I've thought about this a bit as a game designer. Basically, teachers have to force (induce extrinsic motivation) students to learn things, because the student has no greater goal (intrinsic motivation) which would flag the knowledge to them as being immediately relevant. If, on the other hand, the student needed to be able to know the sums of large numbers quickly while they had their hands full (for, say, estimating a fair tip as a server in a restaurant), they'd quickly absorb a mental addition algorithm--because they would have created a mental gap, a place where their plans say "and then if only I could--".

The things that should be taught, I think, correlate highly to the types of things students will later wish they knew. These are mostly low-level rules and processes for things which are so "obvious" to everyone else that they're hard to communicate unless you have a background in education. To flip that around, the kinds of things we call "trivia"--things equally simple or obvious, but as easily learned as said (e.g. a state capitol) don't really need school to teach them--as, if someone later feels the need to know, they can just ask anyone, and pick it up on their own. School is mostly a place to impart knowledge that's hard to teach (including to self-teach) if you don't know the specific skills of teaching.

I disagree. 'Why should we study physiology?' and 'Give the cause of the war of 1812' (to name but two) are open-ended questions which encourage argumentation. Rote emorization, which is required by many other of the questions, has plenty of value - as does exercise for muscle tone. Your problem-solving and cooperation skills are going to be severely hobbled if you don't know anything without looking it up and have no ability to retain information.

  > Note the lack of any room for original expression or
  > thought - no essays, no argumentation.

Really? Answers to many of the quesions could be mini essays and some require argumentation. Better than multiple-choice test so popular now. Also what could you write an essay about if all your knowledge is in Google? How can you argue, if you now no facts, because you avoided rote memorization? How do you know your expression is original if you did not spend time learning about other expressions out there?

You cannot build a palace without a fundament. Unless it's an air palace.

I'm pretty sure they used naval maps even in those days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com