This bizarre example only goes to show you have absolutely zero clue the kinds of learning objectives involved in teaching math.

Again, just demonstrate you have no idea what the kinds of learning objectives being tested for in universty math courses are, or what skills are needed to succeed in them.

Do you mean that you've given individual lectures to large groups or that you've taught a class, where people are there because they are essentially forced to be there? Also, what did you teach - math or poker/gambling topics?

Also, you should make YouTube videos or something if you're great at giving math lectures (or really anything - poker? gambling?) I mean, you're already a minor celebrity and that goes a long way when it comes to promotion. I'd seriously be happy to collaborate if you're as good as you claim.

Thanks I guess?

Ya I am not disputing the test either, I am disputing dismissing everything BUT the test as meaningful in establishing any bonafides that would allow one to contribute intelligently to these discussions.

I am sure others have not taken that test here and if i was the one hand waving away all their other qualifications and achievements as meaningless, and asserting only that test was instructive enough, I would be called out by many for the ridiculousness of that assertion.

David, also, your "I'm practically the smartest person ever" act doesn't play super well on a forum full of smart (QP notwithstanding), introspective nerds who know other smart people and stuff, but if you package that well, man the sky is the limit.

STEM education has definitely had a pretty large sea change since the time your father was teaching. I suspect this is why your "tips" for being a good teacher seem hopelessly outdated in their focus on the idea of some brilliant sage-on-the-stage telling their students just the right thing. I like to think of myself as a pretty damned effective PDE teacher, but none of the ways I measure that effectiveness is related to much of anything you have suggested ITT.

And would be quite horrible if he ever started doing this act in front of a group of college kids.

Fact, is though, FACT, what I say is true and you are not even disputing it. you are just trying to dance around it.

Tests used to be far more overly reliant on just rote learning. To counter that many have weighted the test far more towards the application which is good but they have not removed the required rote learning aspects. Just because you drop a bar to a lower level does not mean it will not still be a bar. Pointing at the weighting of the other elements does not change that.

Hey Dave, why did you pretend you didn’t know what a diferencial equation is yesterday?

.... and the trap is once again sprung.


- You are not smart
- Lol at you thinking you are smart

:: supplies bonafides to show he is smart ::

- your braggadociousness will not play well here amongst us smart people and a smart person would know that.


Obvious troll type scenario set up, sprung and complete. Checkmate DS.

If it was not so obvious and boring a tactic it might actually carry some weight.

Anyway on to the others still challenging DS to prove himself... we can copy/paste this again later if/when he supplies more info to prove he is the fool you guys are trying to assert he is.

Or you bragging about how many thousands you have taught as rebuttal.

I doubt that would go over well.

Gotcha uke.

Probably having another English problem. His strength is in maths and logic, remember?

An online personality can get away with a lot of things that would be "horrible" in part because a hate-boner is just a boner if you're playing for attention.

Man, how are you so bad at everything? Btw, I'm pretty sure David is extremely smart by almost any standards. That's not the point.

What's wrong with my tips?

I already replied to your tips. You might need to scroll back up. Mainly they were just rather banal tips in a highly instructor-centric worldview of how to teach as opposed to a student-centered approach.

Somehow I have to spell things out for you but obviously part of the implication is that introspective nerd types also feel a bit threatened by someone else's claims of intelligence and are inherently skeptical and combative when extraordinary claims are made. And they take things too literally and don't know how to have fun. But the world is much larger and David obviously has a lot of positive traits if you try to market him as an online personality.

Btw, I didn't realize everyone hates you here too - when people were complaining about you in BFI and telling you to go back to Politics, I thought you were at least well-liked here. Yet here we are.

Oh puh-lease. The person who constantly centres every conversations ever at all times everytime anytime always forever and ever about David's self-proclaimed "smarts" is David. Yes he falls into obvious traps. But it is his exuding "I'm super smart" identity everywhere that results in this constant critique.

Uhhh....I started my math undergrad almost 20 years ago now. There was hardly any emphasis on rote learning back then, and certainly not today. Are you just making stuff up completely? Being able to succeed as a math undergrad is all about developing your ability to reason with mathematical concepts, and rote memorization like the derivative of tan(x) or whatever is largely an incidental byproduct of exposure, not some big challenge students need to overcome, or a priority in the learning outcomes, or a focus on the tests. Nobody ever asks questions like your ridiculous "plug memorized digits of pi into formulas". That just has nothing to do with university level math courses.

This is where you began:
Sorry, but none of this rings remotely true to me as someone who has spent my adult life learning and teaching mathematics. It isn't that people don't have to memorize anything ever, that would be nuts, but the suggestion that learning math is really emphasizing rote learning as "the easiest way to test" and that mathematicians are "over weighing" this over practicality is just utter nonsense. Rote memorization is a very low level skill that is hardly emphasized at all, and of the many students I've worked with to take from F to A students (far more than DS every could dream of), I can't think of a single one where the learning skill I've worked on them with was rote memorization. It's fine that you are totally ignorant about this - it's my job not yours, afterall - but maybe tone down the pontifications about it.

Btw I'm not sure what it is about my mind you're trying to change but this is what I believe about you:

1) You are extremely smart by conventional standards
2) You're a bit less mature than the average person of your age and intelligence
3) You've been less successful than the average person of your age, intelligence and overall circumstances
4) You're more famous than the average person of your age and intelligence
5) You have some personality quirks - on the whole they've been a net negative
6) Some of those personality quirks may be advantageous if you want to become more of a public persona
7) You haven't really maximized your fame, nor have you fully monetized it
8) You would enjoy being more famous and having your intelligence being more widely acknowledged
9) You're reasonably wealthy and comfortable but you would enjoy having way more money if nothing else as a way to prove to yourself and others how awesome you are

Am I on the right track?

[QUOTE=candybar;57488316
Also, you should make YouTube videos or something if you're great at giving math lectures (or really anything - poker? gambling?) I mean, you're already a minor celebrity and that goes a long way when it comes to promotion. I'd seriously be happy to collaborate if you're as good as you claim.[/QUOTE]

Did you know that I just wrote a short book called Probability for 12 Year Olds (And Maybe You)? I plan to make a few changes which is easy because Amazon prints on demand. I plan to write a similar book and similar title regarding algebra. I don't know anything about you but it seems a collaboration could work. Especially because it's hard to convince the general public that a professional gambler with one year of college could write a better book for the math challenged than what is already out there. So, a collaboration with someone who has credentials the public would accept is worth sharing a multimillion dollar payday that would ensue if such a book, enhanced with videos, was accepted by parents as a must have to help their kids get through an algebra class.

Take a look at that book, send me a PM if that style of teaching is acceptable to you, divulge who you are, and we can get the show on the road.

This whole rote learning thing has been a very common trope among self-unaware, bad students for a long time. There's always been people who believe they are smart good students and if only education worked differently everyone would acknowledge this. There's a very small kernel of truth if you limit it to specific subjects where memorization plays a bigger part, but obviously math is the worst subject to apply this to. Especially given that Cuepee seems to have been a pretty bad student even in high school - like seriously what do you even have to memorize to do well in high school math? This whole "rote learnings" vs "practical implementation skills" dichotomy itself gives away how bad Cuepee is at basic cognitive tasks. I would probably get instantly fired if I were to write something that terrible at work.

I can google the "challenges with Rote learning in education' scholarly articles for you if you are going to pretend it is not even an issue but I would prefer you just be honest. It is an identified and KNOWN issue now and educators are actively trying to be better and more varied in their approaches to not make things so rote centric.

You an educator pretending to be unaware is unbecoming even if you think it helps you 'win' a point against me.

Yes

This is not really a high bar to clear. I am extremely good at chess compared to 99.9% of the population, yet objectively a very poor chess player.

oooh burn.

maybe you can prompt me to start supplying bonafides so you can then mock me for being so insecure as to do so. Another checkmate by the oh so crafty.

You need to turn your bullet point analysis on yourself and your child like argumentation style an your desperate trolling for uke's acknowledgement and 'sidesing'. Actually you will almost certainty get the latter. Let the circle jerk begin.