Teachers’ unions HATE THEM!

Need a piece of paper? You sure?

Moneyball your education.

http://www.openculture.com/free_certificate_courses

Delicious progress.

“You can’t put a price on a good education.”

You know, you were right….

Teachers will, by and large, go the way of horse-shoe makers and coachmen.

Protip: I know a lot of people who do these. Take 2 fun courses (they can be zany) for every 4 serious ones.

The real price of education

Love of learning.

https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-started-completely-free-now/

“The fact that MOOCs were free sparked widespread interest in them. Students got excited because they were getting to learn from the best in the world for free (and that’s why I built Class Central to help me keep track of them.) The media got excited because they got to write clickbait titles about the death of universities.”

They are gone, at this point they’re pretty tax havens.
When you kick out the people who build/can run a place, its rep suffers. Who knew?

“But once the hype died down and MOOC providers tried to monetize, they found it difficult to do so without charging for content. Matt Walton, chief product officer at FutureLearn, said this about their recent pricing change: “Research we carried out showed that a certificate on its own doesn’t offer enough value for money and that some people don’t want or need a certificate.”

The good intentions disappeared once they realized how many people want to learn. So being liberal, they hid the data behind paywalls for rich kids. We need a pirate bay for MOOC data, kinda like the academic paper pirate bay.
Now doing a master’s online actually costs far more than an IRL one here.
This is bubble pricing. I oppose this.
It’s funny people knew they were getting ripped off once they saw the information though. So the response was to hide the information. Wikipedia flashbacks, ew.
Once this bubble pops, academia will be reviled. Lifelong debt! Ruin!

I’d still like to see PDF uploads from current students of all ongoing courses. Come on, rebel! Help a brother out with your powerpoints. They could make a new category on piratebay…. Call it “Fuck the system, end tuition?” DARE I DREAM.

If any of you shitlords actually do this, your videos should be .mkv format with .nfo attachments and photos in .png. Compress .exe files and .epub is openware for e-books.
For regular documents
https://help.libreoffice.org/Common/XML_File_Formats

Remember, it needs to be readable to people with computers 10+ years out of date (poor people). You should be able to fit most of the programs e.g. VLC player, on a thumb drive.

Yours lovingly, MrStark.

p.s. Certificates should only cost money for doggy daycare since they are adorable, aren’t they? p.p.s. Play the above at enhanced speed. I’m gifted at brutal takedowns and tunes.

Sorry liberals, students need rote and repetition

It works and it’s the same reason Asia is trashing the West.

They are big on rote.

http://nautil.us/issue/17/big-bangs/how-i-rewired-my-brain-to-become-fluent-in-math-rd
“Worse, students often believe they understand something when, in fact, they don’t. By championing the importance of understanding, teachers can inadvertently set their students up for failure as those students blunder in illusions of competence.”

Oh look, all the problems and here’s the source.

I don’t think it’s inadvertent.
Understanding concepts is lazy introductory work. They’re trying to turn STEM into something like English lit, where your ability to blag counts for something.

“I couldn’t help but reflect back on the West Point-trained engineers I’d worked with in the Army. Their mathematically and scientifically based approach to problem-solving was clearly useful for the real world—far more useful than my youthful misadventures with math had been able to imagine.”

The sound of liberal arts majors weeping.
What goes unmentioned is that high neural plasticity exists in the innately intelligent. Stupid people are stuck and past a certain age, can’t learn new tricks. Considering the low IQ of Education majors, perhaps they’re literally incapable of teaching these things? Wouldn’t we have to fire them? Or pay them based on performance?

“I was beginning to intuit that the sparse outlines of the equation were like a metaphorical poem, with all sorts of beautiful symbolic representations embedded within it.”

The liberal arts refuses to believe other subjects possess emotion. Or beauty.

“Time after time, professors in mathematics and the sciences have told me that building well-ingrained chunks of expertise through practice and repetition was absolutely vital to their success.”

Lazy teachers screaming in the distance.
It’s very simple.
Go back to the old repetition or don’t bother sending the kids to school because they’ll literally forget everything over summer anyway.

Arguing online is a waste of time

http://www.anarchointrovert.com/2015/01/01/arguing-online-definite-waste-time/

Think about it this way. There are three types of people who become relevant.

1. The idiot. You have no responsibility to teach them and they aren’t paying you. 9/10 they aren’t even grateful and actively hate you. At best, point them in the direction of a list of half a dozen good starter resources.

2. The attention whore. You’re feeding them. Call them out, laugh, move along.

3. The person who really wants to learn and seems like a good person. You need to know them on the level of friend to ascertain for sure and they’ll be less likely to snipe. Rarer than they seem, #1s and 2s come at you like this. Tease with little tendrils of the big ideas. If they bite – Same advice as #1, if they have questions tell them to save them until after they’ve studied those resources. Give the briefest response possible to each question.

You will preserve your sanity (1/2) and spread the good stuff, people might seek you out for it.

PC teaching method is inferior to traditional, study finds

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/31/Teaching-Report-Tradition-Best-in-Classroom

The report, What Makes Great Teaching, commissioned by the Sutton Trust and Durham University takes aim at “inefficient” and “ineffective” fashionable teaching methods such as “child centred learning” and “discovery learning”, which it claims is retarding the progress of young people in schools. It praises traditional, efficient methods and the establishment of clear rules for classroom behaviour, and anticipates the potential anger among the teaching community the report could generate.

…The report also rejected the modern notion that students needed regular praise and boosts to their self-worth to succeed. In reality, it is claimed, constant praise encourages complacency among learners. Indicating to a student that more is expected of them through disapproval of performance instead produces the desired effect: “For low-attaining pupils, praise… meant to be encouraging and protective can actually convey a message of low expectations.

…Ultimately, the report concludes that the most important element that makes a good teacher is not their use of fashionable teaching methods, but “strong knowledge and understanding of their subject” which shows “strong evidence of impact on student outcomes”.

The least important aspects that contribute to good teaching are “teacher beliefs”, which includes their knowledge of teaching theory and “conceptual models”, and “professional beliefs” which includes “reflecting on and developing professional practice”. In comparison to teacher knowledge, these practices only show “some evidence” of improving students.

The findings appear to vindicate the efforts of former Education Secretary Michael Gove to reform the UK’s schools system. In September 2013, he said modern methods of teaching were contributing to the “sidelining of the teacher from the activity of learning” and that “theorists have consistently argued for ways of organising classrooms and classroom activity which reduce the teacher’s central role in education”.

Mr. Gove said: “Allied to these teaching methods which have nothing to do with passing on knowledge, there has also been an emphasis on teachers having to put their own learning aside so that work is ‘relevant’ to the students. This has resulted in the dumbing of educational material down to the level of the child – with GCSE English papers that ask students about Tinie Tempah, or Simon Cowell – rather than encouraging the child to thirst after the knowledge of the teacher”.

The Guardian reports the comments of one deputy headmaster who expressed concerns that the valuable conclusions of the report would be lost unless teachers took heed. He said: “Until teachers, school leaders – and perhaps vitally, Ofsted inspectors – are brought up to speed with the latest developments, the impact will be limited”.