Sunday, March 29, 2009
Apologies
Sorry for not posting much this past week--Spring break relaxation and a trip to Santa Barbara have taken my time up.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Fox apologizes
Greg Gutfeld, on his show Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld mocked Canada's Chief of the Land Staff's suggestion that Canada may need a break from involvement in Afghanistan due to shortages. This prompted Canada to demand him to apologize, which he did:
Via globeandmail
It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize.
Via globeandmail
Saturday, March 21, 2009
What makes a good teacher?
Two days ago, a friend and I got into a discussion over good teachers at our school that got me thinking. Although most are decent, there are some that are mediocre and a few that are excellent. From these, I have seen a few qualities I feel make an exemplary (public school) teacher:
Depth of knowledge: Obviously, a teacher has to know the subject well. Those that have gone over the material enough understand the intricacies and subtleties of the subject. They have seen enough to not need to check back on resources to clarify for themselves but are a walking encyclopedia for their subject. They have studied their subject so intensively that they can explain it with clarity and simplicity. At this point, a teacher is an expert in the subject and serves as a fallback for students' questions and problems.
Breadth of knowledge: There is a point where the teacher knows the material so well that he views the subject in its entirety: breadth of knowledge. Usually, when you study something, you break it into pieces do make a daunting task less so. In school, a teacher does this by splitting the material into units of related material. Although this can cover the material in depth, it severs the connections between units that otherwise would be kept if the subject were viewed as a whole. A good teacher understands not only a unit as a standalone but how it is connected to the overall spirit of the course. He can make connections between not only different units but also other subjects.
My chemistry teacher explained equilibrium and solubility with analogies based on non-chemistry subjects, connecting it with visible phenomena my class and I could easily understand.
Humility: A good teacher knows the limits of his knowledge. He understand that his students may have other interests at heart or priorities over the material he is teaching and that he is not the center of their world.
I have a teacher who is a doctorate in chemistry, and although she of all my teachers probably knows the most about the subject, she is the most humble. She's one of the few teachers I have had that actually says "I don't know" when a student asks a stumping question. She is willing to admit when she is wrong and correct her error.
Humility is not solely personality-dependent. Generally, the more a person knows about something, the more aware they are about their lack of knowledge. So humility not only indicates a better personality but it points to greater knowledge.
Reasonableness: A good teacher understands the limits of his students to challenge but not exceed their capabilities to not squeeze interest out of them.
My math teacher this year, although the smartest I have ever had, has turned me off from math because of the exactness she expected on tests. Nowhere else besides my math tests do single-digit errors drop my grade by over 5%.
Understanding: A good teacher understands how his students think and view the world so that he can tailor his lessons to them. He knows his students' workload and adapts accordingly because the best work is not done without the time constraints of other classes.
Consistency: A good teacher is consistent in grading and attitude. He should be depended upon when it comes to fairness and justice.
Depth of knowledge: Obviously, a teacher has to know the subject well. Those that have gone over the material enough understand the intricacies and subtleties of the subject. They have seen enough to not need to check back on resources to clarify for themselves but are a walking encyclopedia for their subject. They have studied their subject so intensively that they can explain it with clarity and simplicity. At this point, a teacher is an expert in the subject and serves as a fallback for students' questions and problems.
Breadth of knowledge: There is a point where the teacher knows the material so well that he views the subject in its entirety: breadth of knowledge. Usually, when you study something, you break it into pieces do make a daunting task less so. In school, a teacher does this by splitting the material into units of related material. Although this can cover the material in depth, it severs the connections between units that otherwise would be kept if the subject were viewed as a whole. A good teacher understands not only a unit as a standalone but how it is connected to the overall spirit of the course. He can make connections between not only different units but also other subjects.
My chemistry teacher explained equilibrium and solubility with analogies based on non-chemistry subjects, connecting it with visible phenomena my class and I could easily understand.
Humility: A good teacher knows the limits of his knowledge. He understand that his students may have other interests at heart or priorities over the material he is teaching and that he is not the center of their world.
I have a teacher who is a doctorate in chemistry, and although she of all my teachers probably knows the most about the subject, she is the most humble. She's one of the few teachers I have had that actually says "I don't know" when a student asks a stumping question. She is willing to admit when she is wrong and correct her error.
Humility is not solely personality-dependent. Generally, the more a person knows about something, the more aware they are about their lack of knowledge. So humility not only indicates a better personality but it points to greater knowledge.
Reasonableness: A good teacher understands the limits of his students to challenge but not exceed their capabilities to not squeeze interest out of them.
My math teacher this year, although the smartest I have ever had, has turned me off from math because of the exactness she expected on tests. Nowhere else besides my math tests do single-digit errors drop my grade by over 5%.
Understanding: A good teacher understands how his students think and view the world so that he can tailor his lessons to them. He knows his students' workload and adapts accordingly because the best work is not done without the time constraints of other classes.
Consistency: A good teacher is consistent in grading and attitude. He should be depended upon when it comes to fairness and justice.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Pope: Condoms don't help stop the spread of AIDS
As reported by a BBC piece, Pope Benedict XVI has said that
This is essentially a power struggle between church and science. Clearly, science triumphs in trully saving souls and lives. Religion, in this case represented by the Pope, is reluctant to let go of the masses that it has held in unquestioning loyalty for so long. Now, with the advent of more open usage of science against traditional dogma, religion is striking back, tieing science to social ills such as divorce, abortion, and prostitution which itself can not solve. It is pointing the finger at science instead of confronting its own deficiencies in solving these problems.
What's at stake here is not the lives of those currently of age. The children and those too young to understand the battle between modernism and traditionalism are going to be affected the most. As they are brainwashed by church and anti-science propoganda, they develop a mindset against using science to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies. Instead of moving into the future, they return to the past. The past decades of HIV and other STD prevention and treatment will have gone to waste as the people forsake science for doctrine.
Instead of acting on behalf of the people, the Pope is acting for himself and his church only.
The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.and that
It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality.Here lies the most obvious difference between science and religion: the intoleration and unwillingness to change that traditionalists teach. In keeping populations healthy and in check, science has proven itself more than able with its extensive health care and birth control. Contraception too has proven itself in preventing unwanted children and stopping much STD transmission.
This is essentially a power struggle between church and science. Clearly, science triumphs in trully saving souls and lives. Religion, in this case represented by the Pope, is reluctant to let go of the masses that it has held in unquestioning loyalty for so long. Now, with the advent of more open usage of science against traditional dogma, religion is striking back, tieing science to social ills such as divorce, abortion, and prostitution which itself can not solve. It is pointing the finger at science instead of confronting its own deficiencies in solving these problems.
What's at stake here is not the lives of those currently of age. The children and those too young to understand the battle between modernism and traditionalism are going to be affected the most. As they are brainwashed by church and anti-science propoganda, they develop a mindset against using science to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies. Instead of moving into the future, they return to the past. The past decades of HIV and other STD prevention and treatment will have gone to waste as the people forsake science for doctrine.
Instead of acting on behalf of the people, the Pope is acting for himself and his church only.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Self-esteem boosting?
Brought to my attention by a BBC article.
Now, one of the most strongly emphasized "skills" in a young child is self-esteem. A young student is supposed to believe and trust himself. Educators and parents are emphasizing this, telling young children that they are always right or at least in the right direction. Instead of scolding their children, parents are pampering them. All of this was done in the interest of a child's emotional security and mental confidence. However, the problem is that children are taking what they constantly hear to heart and truly believe themselves to be the center of the universe.
Before, a child actually had to own up to his mistakes. Now, he can just cower behind and let his parents do the brunt work. He can do low-quality, slow work and still be praised for it. Children feel entitled to things: praise, good grades, attention, and later in life, a job or promotion. The problem is, not everybody deserves these. Not every person is special and worthy of special acclaim.
Asking a child to change is too hard and would take away their self esteem, they say. A child needs to be confident in his own abilities to succeed in life, they claim. The problem is, the result of this is a generation of students who are told to be themselves, even when they produce bad work. They aren't compelled to change for the better, just continue in the incorrect way.
This form of teaching turns out bad students. It is the the opposite of strict traditionalist teaching methods and for that reason is too lenient. The best way is with moderate strictness.
Now, one of the most strongly emphasized "skills" in a young child is self-esteem. A young student is supposed to believe and trust himself. Educators and parents are emphasizing this, telling young children that they are always right or at least in the right direction. Instead of scolding their children, parents are pampering them. All of this was done in the interest of a child's emotional security and mental confidence. However, the problem is that children are taking what they constantly hear to heart and truly believe themselves to be the center of the universe.
Before, a child actually had to own up to his mistakes. Now, he can just cower behind and let his parents do the brunt work. He can do low-quality, slow work and still be praised for it. Children feel entitled to things: praise, good grades, attention, and later in life, a job or promotion. The problem is, not everybody deserves these. Not every person is special and worthy of special acclaim.
Asking a child to change is too hard and would take away their self esteem, they say. A child needs to be confident in his own abilities to succeed in life, they claim. The problem is, the result of this is a generation of students who are told to be themselves, even when they produce bad work. They aren't compelled to change for the better, just continue in the incorrect way.
This form of teaching turns out bad students. It is the the opposite of strict traditionalist teaching methods and for that reason is too lenient. The best way is with moderate strictness.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Suicide bombing photo
An amazing photo of the instant of a suicide bomber detonating during a Sri Lankan religious holiday.
It wasn't pure luck--it taken from a videotape of the event.
Via Sydney Morning Herald.
It wasn't pure luck--it taken from a videotape of the event.
Via Sydney Morning Herald.