> what is the difference between coaching football or basketball and teaching history or English?
1. A sports coach can force a player out of the games or out of the team if that player doesn't attend the practices. Teachers have no such power: students can't be forced to practice the material out of school, and they can't be removed from class for not practicing.
1. Standardized testing reflects, at best, decently the purpose and aims of general education.
A competitive game of fotball, on the other hand, reflects perfectly the purpose and aims of football training. Simply said, the purpose of sports is to train a player to win the game. The purpose of general education is not to write a test successfully. Rather -- it shouldn't be the purpose of general education.
The purpose of education is to disseminate knowledge and critical thinking skills. That purpose needs to be measured in a correct fashion.
Think how silly it would be, instead of a competitive game of football, that each team was given a set of drills to perform, on their own, on an empty field, to prove their worth in football. It'd be absurd. It doesn't fit the purpose of their training.
The purpose of education shouldn't be to pass some tests.
A more constructive conversation, I believe, would be to find places, distinct disconnects if you will, where the method used to measure progress and achievement in education does not reflect the purpose and aims of education.
> The underlying issue is that people are afraid to try and explore.
> Skilled computer users, on the other hand, don't let a failing model bother them. They just try something else.
I don't agree with you.
The fear of new ideas and places is a human quality, not a consequence or a property of a particular group of people.
I, for example, feel very comfortable learning a new programming language. I feel excited and content when I'm picking up some new language or library -- I can easily hunt through pages and pages of information that does not help me without being deterred in my goal. To phrase it objectively -- it's an environment that's completely foreign and largely without immediate payoff, yet I feel comfortable within it.
In stark contrast to that, I've listened to the same ~20 songs for the last 4 months. I know there are plenty of great songs out there, but I'm happy with what I'm listening to right now. I don't want to explore and find new or neat music -- I'm perfectly happy with what I've got. I know there are countless "unknown unknowns" -- wonderful gems of music just waiting to be discovered -- but I don't want to hunt after them. When I feel comfortable with these 3-4 albums, I'll go look for something else.
I don't think advanced computer users are in any way immune to feeling, at least, uneasy or uncomfortable when exploring a particular set of new ideas or places. It's just a question of what type of things they're comfortable exploring.
I happen to be pretty comfortable with programming, but I am hesitant and uneasy when exploring new music. Why? I don't know. I've come to accept myself as I am. :)
Notice how, more than once, the man refuses a well paying job because it is difficult to do, but also does so with the understanding that enduring that hardship would lift him out of poverty.
Notice how, instead of honorable thriftiness and hard work, the man relies on taking advantage of the system and other peoples' hard work.
It's not romantic to acknowledge this, but it is the truth. I'm hard pressed to find some thing which I can learn from this man.
1. Is programming the right job for you?
If you feel uncomfortable or dismissive of this line of thinking, consider a quote by Jefferson: "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." If programming is the profession that truly satisfies you and complements your abilities and personality, then it should withstand critical probing. Is this something you're doing because it's comfortable and you've never looked elsewhere? Are you truly competent?
2. Build something.
Something simple and tangible.
Get an $10 point & shoot camera, go into the woods and take 20 pictures of wild flowers. Print the pictures and make a physical album. Do as many of these small, creation-oriented, achievable "distraction projects" as you can.
In my experience, they provide a great boost of self-confidence, and this allows me to think about personal problems with perspective and calm. This allows me to introspect in a healthy fashion. Heavy weight lifting and long walks seem to provide the same boost to my thought process.
Before I came here, I did my own brief (and likely inaccurate) calculations:
Distance to Gliese 581 g: 21 light years
Speed of Helios 2 (fastest manmade object in space) = ~ 241350 km/h
Time for Helos 2 to reach Gliese 581g ~= 93 907 years
I couldn't help but think of Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot". 93 thousand years is an awful long time.
I'm glad I'm wrong.
> Every time I try to learn programming, it feels painfully slow compared to other things I've picked up.
It's probably slow because you're not having fun with it. You're probably not having fun with it because you're not solving a compelling goal.
Ask yourself whether you're learning "just to learn it" or are you trying to solve a problem and this particular language/api/compiler/implementation will help you achieve that goal.
I might be presumptuous here (and I apologize if I'm wrong) but the times I've found myself stuck "learning" have been when I was just going through the lessons for the heck of it, without a real goal in mind, without something to accomplish.
1. A sports coach can force a player out of the games or out of the team if that player doesn't attend the practices. Teachers have no such power: students can't be forced to practice the material out of school, and they can't be removed from class for not practicing.
1. Standardized testing reflects, at best, decently the purpose and aims of general education. A competitive game of fotball, on the other hand, reflects perfectly the purpose and aims of football training. Simply said, the purpose of sports is to train a player to win the game. The purpose of general education is not to write a test successfully. Rather -- it shouldn't be the purpose of general education.
The purpose of education is to disseminate knowledge and critical thinking skills. That purpose needs to be measured in a correct fashion.
Think how silly it would be, instead of a competitive game of football, that each team was given a set of drills to perform, on their own, on an empty field, to prove their worth in football. It'd be absurd. It doesn't fit the purpose of their training. The purpose of education shouldn't be to pass some tests.
A more constructive conversation, I believe, would be to find places, distinct disconnects if you will, where the method used to measure progress and achievement in education does not reflect the purpose and aims of education.