Interesting because I think I have some rather random assortment of hobbies that generally tend to have no overlap and I get pretty good recommendations all the time.
I'm unsure of what everyone's concern with common core is. It was way easier to teach my kid's once I realized that it's just what I've always been doing in my head without anyone telling me to.
It's just about breaking apart problems into digestible pieces.
I don't have a problem with common core, I like that kids gets to see all the different ways to solve a problem. The problem I see is that schools are testing all the different methods instead of asking the students to use the method to solve the problem.
There's some value in that. Not as a long term principle, but I am all for having students learn a variety of methods and have to spend some time working through those methods. But only to make sure the students are giving the different methods a shot and actually finding the one that makes the most sense to them, rather than just sticking with whatever was learned first. If they're never given the chance to just work with their method of choice after, it's pointless.
This is a great point. I found myself both admiring and hating some of my son's school work recently in that it illustrated and described mental problem solving exceptionally well, then gruelingly pushed him to repeatedly explain the model rather than simply use it. Pages upon pages of dissection and regurgitation. My son could understand the model just fine, but was perplexed as to why he had to go over it like that.
That's because public school uses memorization as a cheap stand-in for understanding. It's easy to internalize 2+2=4, but it's impossible to internalize the quadratic equation. At some point, you need to just know the procedure and it's application, and most importantly, recognize when to use it in novel situations.
It took about a one paragraph explanation to not only realize this is how I already do things in my head, but to suddenly become much better at it because I can now slow down and conceptualize the whole process when necessary.
I learned math in the "traditional" method through several levels of calculus in college (decades ago) and found a young relative's common core math curriculum to be extremely cumbersome and far more confusing for the student. In my opinion its far better to teach a student to understand a mathematical principle than to force them to absorb your prescribed method of understanding. You could know a mathematical principle backwards and forwards and be an expert in the field and still end up baffled at the nonsensical "core curriculum" methods and jargon.
Math education in the U.S. is notoriously behind the rest of the world. It's about time. Speaking as someone who barely passed undergrad calculus and still has nightmares from that 7 problem 4 hour final exam.
Honestly, a lot of it is because of elementary school teachers in my opinion. I don't want to bash them too much, but they often struggle(d) with math. They don't have much of a number sense, and now we're asking them to teach our kids how to have number sense (which is what common core does; it shows that 65+37 = 70+32, etc etc). I actually remember my 6th grade math teacher specifically for this reason. She explained things to us in a way that gave us number sense, instead of just memorizing rote steps. It made my math skills so much better, and I'm still thankful for that today. Sadly, it was only one teacher at the entire school.
I'd love to start a charter elementary school (as much as I generally dislike the concept of a school getting state/federal funding with no testing accountability) where each subject is taught by someone who actually studied the subject, not just "elementary education". Then you might see kids enjoy math and understand it, as their teachers understand and enjoy it and can teach that; it's infectious. I wouldn't be surprised if reading scores also raised when kids are taught by people who clearly enjoy reading and are passionate about reading.
I think math is taught too slow in the U.S.. I remember learning to add, then once I got whatever score on the flash card assessment I got to learn to subtract, then multiply, then divide. Slowly, painfully, and in a way that leaves you bored early, causing you to checkout and fall behind, then you are left wondering why you suck at math later in life.
I think we could stand to move the math curriculum up 3-4 years. Geometry and trigonometry can be taken in 5th grade instead of 9th, algrebra 1-2 in 6-7th grade, then calc in 8th grade, instead of waiting until high school to take these courses. Then in high school, you could offer advanced courses and an actual course progression in statistics, rather than solely AP stats.
Tone down the difficulty, maybe, but there is no reason why these concepts shouldn't be introduced a lot sooner. Basic algebra is pretty intuitive, and in geometry classes you are kinda just plugging and chugging sines and cosines with your calculator anyway. This is coming from someone who sucks at math and wishes they didn't.
In the 6th grade, you were mentally developed enough to understand some of the basic concepts of algebra. Someone (most) in the 3rd or 4th grade isn't developed enough to understand those concepts. This would be analogous to teaching elementary school students latin roots, it just doesn't make much sense, and their ability to dissect particular words is of little to no value at that stage in their development.
This isn't true. Kids start learning algebraic concepts in roughly 2nd grade, and are well-acquainted with the concept of variables, algorithms, order of operations, roots & exponents, converting fractions to decimals & vice versa, etc before they get out of 5th grade. The only fundamental key concept I don't think they're taught, that is critical in algebra 1, is how to solve systems of equations.
It wouldn't improve yours if you're doing that, but the point of it is to teach the kids number sense and how numbers work and can be manipulated to make problems easier.
Why do you believe, or what evidence do you have, for elementary educators spending most of their time keeping children on task? I have asked elementary teachers about this trope and pleasantly surprised to learn that most students do not require constant redirection. Likewise, their classes not much different from higher level classes excepting for the rigor of the subject matter. So, I'd love to read any evidence you have for your statement in case these teachers and their schools were an exception instead of the norm.
Perhaps it can start in high school. I completely agree that there is a developmental caveat here that makes the approach a no-go for younger students.
They have a 3.9% ("green") tier without a high-risk fee, but I don't think the adult companies qualify that one.
I could be wrong, but I didn't find a clear breakdown of who qualifies for each plan on their website. I'm guessing the 3.9% plan and their non-profit plan are there so they can present as a normal payment processor.
CCBill is the primary one and they charge nearly 4% per transaction and routinely hold transactions for up to 6 months sometimes. They also have high registration fees but they are one of the best for high risk industries.
While I agree supplementing with cycling or running is great, on the boulders if you’re too “top heavy” try focusing on “wobbly” problems more. Find a gym with a slab wall, and practice balance style climbing where you don’t need strength in the arms & shoulders. Doing that regularly will balance out the legs portion easily if biking or running isn’t your thing.
Nah, I didn't even need scholarships. The financial aid was really good for Stanford undergrad.
My brother went to a state school undergrad, then got grad degrees from Harvard and Georgetown. He's almost done paying off an assload of debt, but it's meant he's had to work as a consultant these last ten years.
I think everybody thought you were talking about "fancy private" elementary/high schools, which is definitely not a middle class thing. Private college/university is a totally different matter.
They have scholarships for private k-12 too. I went to one 6-12 and my family was at no point ever more than lower-middle class. I got what amounted to a full ride almost my entire time there. And even as the family made more still didn't pay much.
Yeah, the (vague) takeaway I get is that AdSense is a small part of their income, with majority coming from direct brand deals.
Since it all comes out of the same marketing budgets eventually, does this mean integrated influencer advertising is meaningfully undercutting digital ads run by the platforms?
Not meaningfully no - most influencer campaigns have a part for ads to support the content so I think in the Balance it probably builds more ad business.
