The misery of school

[FALCON_12]

Hello,


After a few decades spent in front of and behind the professor's desk, I think I can say this.

The way the French school system teaches things to students tends to cultivate in them the identification with their knowledge. It tends to manufacture minds that defend their knowledge as they might defend their own skin.

Our way of teaching does not reinforce curiosity, the taste for understanding and discovery, it reinforces self-images, pretension, ego, infatuation in those who have understood, and self-contempt in those who who have not grasped the heart, often clumsy with regard to the essential, dispensed by the teacher.

Each teacher presents his field which he himself has not linked to the other subjects. In the same way he makes of his teaching, through the marks he gives to the students and the remarks he makes to them, a system in which this student constructs a fundamentally unhealthy representation of himself: I am the marks and the appreciations that I got. I am the grade I got, I am my knowledge.

We don't favor the joy of questioning our knowledge to understand new things, we don't tend to build thoughts that are open and loving novelty. Our school system is a function that propels those who are below average to self-disintegration and heightens those who are above to stupidity.

Should we repeat here our reactions in our discussions? them forums, even scientific ones, are studded with aggressions, defensive reactions, attacks, and other attempts to demonstrate an absurd personal space in front of life.

I know or I don't know. The other tells me something that I understand or that I do not understand, which seems to me
right or wrong. Very well, I'm going to ask him to show me, to explain me, and if like me he has a love of mechanisms
he will show me what he saw, many thanks.

When should I feel attacked and should I fight back? how those who feel hurt by the assertions of their interlocutor on a forum explain their feeling?

Isn't the hard or soft science we've all learned underpinned by logic and doesn't that logic ask us
to be in a permanent state of learning?

Lifelong learning, joy of discovery, all those things that the school we attended did not awaken in us.

When I love mechanisms, when seeing things work is my joy, I take every objection as a chance to understand something new. I don't feel hurt.

Our way of showing things to students is catastrophic.

[Exnihiloest]

...
We don't favor the joy of questioning our knowledge to understand new things, we don't tend to build thoughts that are open and loving novelty.

To know it, before calling it into question, it would still be necessary to acquire it. But when we see the cultural level of young people, we are far from it. And the lack of acquisition does not only concern pure knowledge, such as useful references in letters, history, maths or physics, but the methods to be used to manipulate them. What one has to think cannot be learned, but how to think in order to think correctly, certainly, and techniques such as text analysis, text summarization, essay writing were supposed to provide the tools. The method is also knowledge.

However, social networks display the evidence that not only a considerable number of young people are incapable of putting the facts and statements with which they are confronted into perspective in relation to a culture, but that they fall into all the traps of rhetoric and use them themselves. Logical errors and sophisms (abusive generalization, ad hominem, scarecrow, trial of intention, interest as a reason, the sole cause, the false dilemma...) are everywhere. And since this collapse of thought began a long time ago, at least since the 80s when it was claimed that the student already had everything in him and that it was enough to reveal it (therefore no need for knowledge), the older people are also concerned, and we are not surprised by all the conspiracy theories that we see everywhere, and certainly here.

Our school system is a function that propels those who are below average to self-disintegration and heightens those who are above to stupidity.

...Our way of showing things to students is catastrophic.

It may be exaggerated, but it is certain that we are far from the optimum. If the EN has something to do with it, it is not the only one responsible. We see the intellectual and cultural deficit throughout society, the replacement of reason by feelings, "angers"; visceral reactions become the foundations of discussions, academics are not exempt from crappy reasoning in form, the people no longer recognize their intellectual elites who, moreover, are themselves severely affected, and even tend to favor sighted hucksters over people who are competent but austere, and all the more so when the latter are qualified or have the recognition of the institutions. Under these conditions, how would we want to be able to "show things to students" correctly and effectively if everything they see outside the education system, including the influence of their parents, works in the opposite direction and discredits it?

[FALCON_12]

Under these conditions, how would we want to be able to "show things to students" correctly and effectively if everything they see outside the education system, including the influence of their parents, works in the opposite direction and discredits it?

As a child I was fascinated by planes, seeing them moving forward in the invisible amazed me. My parents had bought me a tin replica of an airliner and the first thing I did was launch it. Of course, it didn't fly at all, but seeing it fall miserably left me with a question that was only answered much later. How can such a mass as that of an airliner, hundreds of tons!, float in something as thin as air?

Around the age of 18 I discovered that the air, to get around the wing from above, had to accelerate and that this created a depression which "sucked" it upwards, we called that "lift".

So what carried the wing was the air. When an airplane flies it is carried through the air through this vacuum mechanism. Very well.

I stayed with this idea for 8 years and then one day, while discussing with a colleague who taught physics, without really knowing why at the time, I had the certainty that what was carrying the plane even when it was flying , it was always the ground. The air carried the plane and the air was carried by the ground. The child's question must have been working in the background and my brain had found that answer. My colleague burst out laughing and a heated discussion ensued, but even though I couldn't demonstrate my theory, I stuck to my position.

However, this field of aerology or fluid mechanics not being mine, I sought the opinion of my fellow professors of mechanics. There were therefore 3 certified teachers and another agrégé. The 4 found my idea absurd and days of discussion began.

For them the plane was flying but to say that the ground continued to carry it was absurd. Its 500 tons were carried by the air, but the air was carried by nothing. These 500 tons, according to them, crazy thing when you think about it, while we were in a concentric gravity field, did not transfer their weight to the ground.

I then brought the question to a forum and the reception was the same. Sarcasm, bursts of laughter, an armada of mostly qualified thinkers and connoisseurs of the law of lift found the idea laughable.

Regarding fellow mechanics teachers, the outcome of the discussion was as follows: one day a mechanics teacher with a long white beard, having "done normal Sup" (as they say), senior chair, came to discuss with us and gave them the holy word: according to him my theory was the right one. And there - another symptom of the same secret disease - my 4 interlocutors immediately found arguments that went in my direction. For them I was now right, it was established, that was the truth.

These 4 professors of mechanics who were not disturbed to imagine 500 tons floating in the air in a concentric gravity field without transferring their weight in all the pile of matter appearing below them had suddenly rotated 180 degrees because a local thought leader had told them what to think.

These 4 professors of mechanics stuffed with equations and knowledge had become blind to evidence that a 10-year-old child would see and they had fought hard to defend their knowledge, that is to say their business: "intrados, extrados , depression, overpressure, drag, lift! it's the air that carries the plane and nothing else!". When the local authority had validated my theory they had adopted it without seeing the thing.

On the forum things ended the same way. A moderator was searched on another forum an avionics specialist and he confirmed my point of view. And there the same phenomenon: the horde of opponents suddenly admitted that I had told the truth. An authority had stamped my theory, we didn't see it work anymore, we still didn't understand more what was going on, but we admitted because someone more knowing than oneself had indicated the truth.

---------

Other symptom of the same disease:

One day I discovered the cardan formulas and the fact that polynomials of the third degree also had analytic solutions, like those of the second degree. The next day, enthusiastic, I went to see a college of mathematics and told her about my discovery: "Hello Sophie, you knew that the polynomials of the 3rd degree ....". She replied annoyed that it was wrong, that she had a master's degree in mathematics and that she knew what she was talking about.

I had touched on her knowledge, I had questioned the thing with which she had identified, she had felt attacked because I had shown that she did not know something that a professor of another matter knew. The beauty of the thing did not interest him, besides the whole mathematics did not interest him more than that. It was his livelihood, teaching was food and I had touched on that.

.........

I could extend the list of examples, I have dozens of them, I have seen the same logic repeated a thousand times, the same psychology operate. Our way of constructing knowledge makes the learner identify with what he knows. This identification means that he defends this knowledge and feels attacked when it is touched. This position also makes him stop looking and wanting to understand because it could disturb his knowledge and therefore disturb him. This identification therefore tends to close the psyches and this closing is a toxic thing because to live fully implies constantly learning. A psyche that refuses to learn because it protects itself has ceased to follow life.

.......

- So how do you show things correctly and effectively to students?

By being the example of what we seek to transmit, by having an open mind and a love of mechanisms, a living mind, a mind that does not protect itself and that wants to see life and see the things he learns.

This, for me, is the crux of the matter. Everything else, society, the media, future parents, proceeds from this.

The problem of education is the educators and the problem of society is the school.

[phil59]

All I can say is that until December of my second year, I was working, not huge from huge, but at least enough.

In December, I was told that I had to pass, at the time in 1st E, that it was what I needed, and I did not want.
And niet, for you, it's the best, you have possibilities.

From there, I left my bag in a corner in the evening, and took it back in the morning.
Supervised homework raised my average a little, and at the end of the year, I was still well into the first quarter of the class.

From then on, never did anything in class again.

I had my BAC E, with 11.96, not redeemed at 12, because very bad assessments, "does nothing" ... (rather in the last quarter in 1 and terminal).

And now I ... go on!

[izentrop]

An authority had stamped my theory, we didn't see it work anymore, we still didn't understand more what was going on, but we admitted because someone more knowing than oneself had indicated the truth.

"theory"
The lift which is above all caused by the force of the engines or the propellers, depending on the shape of the wings in stable air.
There is influence on the ground during takeoff or landing, but at altitude, the influence on the ground is negligible or even impossible to measure. Atmospheric pressure, on the other hand...

[FALCON_12]

An authority had stamped my theory, we didn't see it work anymore, we still didn't understand more what was going on, but we admitted because someone more knowing than oneself had indicated the truth.

"theory"
The lift which is above all caused by the force of the engines or the propellers, depending on the shape of the wings in stable air.
There is influence on the ground during takeoff or landing, but at altitude, the influence on the ground is negligible or even impossible to measure. Atmospheric pressure, on the other hand...

No, not the lift, the fact that a flying plane is still ultimately buoyed by the ground it left.

[sicetaitsimple]

"theory"

You really are just a big dork ! Since you are told that lift does not exist, that the plane is supported by the ground via the column of air which is below! It's unbelievable, that.....

[Exnihiloest]

...
...
- So how do you show things correctly and effectively to students?

By being the example of what we seek to transmit, by having an open mind and a love of mechanisms, a living mind, a mind that does not protect itself and that wants to see life and see the things he learns.

This, for me, is the crux of the matter. Everything else, society, the media, future parents, proceeds from this.

The problem of education is the educators and the problem of society is the school.

there, the subject is refocused on the teaching of physics or technical education. Physics being a bit my thing, I confirm that the weight of the plane is obviously carried over to the air and from the air to the ground. We could very well experience a speaker on a scale, with a drone inside. The drone being in stationary flight, we would obviously measure the same weight as if it were posed.

But there we are already in the subtleties. Much more basic things are not known at all. Newton's first law, for example, passes over the heads of not just students, but the adults they become afterward. How can we get people to understand that we don't need any energy to move at a constant speed, only to overcome friction and various losses? In class, I don't know, but when I see that physics lessons today seem to be done through simulations in front of a PC, then that's for sure, we didn't understand anything. Arousing interest and curiosity is the basis of pedagogy. And nothing better than getting your hands dirty and being surprised by the results, seeing the compass needle deflect according to the current you put in the coil, seeing the arc of a Whimshurt, smelling the chlorine coming off the electrolysis of the salt water... "Physics"? What is "physics" in a simulation? Why should simulation be more valuable than a video game where anything can be produced? Not the kind to enthuse the student, especially in technique where they need something tangible.

[Remundo]

concerning the air, it is very simple to show that you are right...

By the principle of action / reaction.

The air exerts an upward force on the plane, so the plane leans by reaction on the air.

The aerodynamic explanation is complementary: it is indeed the pressure difference between intrados/extrados, itself justified by Bernoulli's equation (which also has application hypotheses...), but also observed experimentally

the air is effectively supported by the ground (again by action/reaction).

But I wouldn't personally say that the ground directly carries the plane. Indirectly yes, and it would be a little too simplified to say that the ground carries an aircraft. If, for example, the air is removed... the ground no longer supports the plane.

The ground in fact is ambivalent from this point of view: by its gravitational attraction, it makes the plane fall, but through the intermediary of the atmosphere and aerodynamic effect, it also supports the plane.

[FALCON_12]

there, the subject is refocused on the teaching of physics or technical education. Physics being a bit my thing, I confirm that the weight of the plane is obviously carried over to the air and from the air to the ground. We could very well experience a speaker on a scale, with a drone inside. The drone being in stationary flight, we would obviously measure the same weight as if it were posed.

Very good.

Now for me the question is this: how is it possible that most educated people, teachers, engineers and others, all educated at our school, can defend the idea that 500 tons are suspended in the air without reporting their weight on the ground?

What about an education system that builds minds that are not immediately and strongly disturbed by this idea?

And, who, in addition, but this is in my opinion the symptom of the same problem, feel attacked and become aggressive when we maintain that they are wrong?

Isn't there something to understand here? do we measure the consequences of such psychology especially when by misfortune they accede to responsibilities? are they still in touch with reality? can they make truly constructive decisions? aren't we all, and in many ways, bearing the brunt of this silent disease?