"To Write Better Code, Read Virginia Woolf"

[EKT]

I really enjoyed this article, "To Write Better Code, Read Virginia Woolf" by J. Bradford Hipps in the New York Times Sunday Review today. Thought others here might want to read it, too!

 

My two cents: As someone who is mainly a classical homeschooler (well...like many here, "classical unschooling" is probably a more apt description of what we actually do), I go back and forth with myself constantly, always fearful I'm doing too much philosophical/humanities stuff and not enough hardcore STEM-type instruction with my children. (They're still very young, of course, but I'm actively and intentionally forging a path in the classical direction.) On the one hand, I feel my true purpose is to educate my children to be "great souls" and yet...I often can't shake the fears I have about our country's tumultuous economic climate; I find myself inwardly frightened that my girls won't be able to get decent jobs when they are grown because I failed to do the right sort of concrete job/skills training with them. (For instance, I'm currently investigating whether we should begin Latin soon, or if I should scrap Latin entirely in favor of a more "useful" language, or even for something totally different. Likewise, I wonder, Is my children's basic math education enough? Should I be devoting the kind of time to math that we joyfully devote to poetry tea time and daily read alouds?)

 

So far, I've always circled back to the knowledge that our (mostly) classical path feels truer to my purposes, to my goal of turning out children who are "deeply" educated. But I experience so much angst about it all! (Is just me? Does anyone else constantly ride that scary pendulum between an education steeped in the nebulous wisdom of the humanities and one in which basic economic security/job training is addressed? It is a constant worry for me! Not that the two are always at cross-purposes, but a homeschooling mother only has so much time and so many years to work with....)

 

Long story short, I found the article comforting! Hope it brightens someone else's day, too. :-)

[Jane Elliot]

Thanks for this interesting and encouraging article. I sent the link to ds, who did WTM, for the most part, grades 2-12 (it was published the year he was in 2nd grade) and then graduated with a B.S. in computer science, summa cum laude. I'll be interested to hear his thoughts.

[Farrar]

From one of the pieces he's arguing against:

 

 

 

If subjects like history and literature are focused on too early, it is easy for someone not to learn to think for themselves and not to question assumptions, conclusions, and expert philosophies.

 

:lol:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :lol:

Boy, did that guy ever miss the point of the humanities.

[EKT]

From one of the pieces he's arguing against:

 

 

:lol:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :lol:

Boy, did that guy ever miss the point of the humanities.

 

Oh my gosh, I know! I had the same reaction when I read that. I was like, "Uh, actually the exact opposite is true." lol. 

[Guest]

My two cents: I am educating people, not producing employees or consumers.

 

[Farrar]

My two cents: I am educating people, not producing employees or consumers.

 

I agree - and any time we get too far from that train of thought in education, then we've gone wrong. On the other hand, we should think about what application skills have in the world today and the potential world of our children's future. It doesn't have to be either/or. We can do both in this case.

[EKT]

My two cents: I am educating people, not producing employees or consumers.

 

No, I completely agree, as well. I'm educating people. (People that I love more than anyone else in the world!) But...I also don't want these particular people living in my basement when they're 25, lol. Hence, my angst. 

[shawthorne44]

From one of the pieces he's arguing against:

 

 

:lol:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :lol:

Boy, did that guy ever miss the point of the humanities.

 

I think I know what he is getting at.  I know a vast majority of my public school humanities classes missed that point.   They thought the point of humanities was to absorb the 'correct' ideas and then be able to regurgitate them at test time.  Actually, my college humanities classes were very much ingest/regurgitate.   Probably why I enjoy independent history study, but I hated every history class.   

 

eta:  It starts early too.   Just try moving from the North to the South in 3rd grade when they teach the Civil War.  The dates and the people's names are the same, but it is otherwise a different war being taught.   

Edited May 22, 2016 by shawthorne44

[SarahW]

I think I know what he is getting at.  I know a vast majority of my public school humanities classes missed that point.   They thought the point of humanities was to absorb the 'correct' ideas and then be able to regurgitate them at test time.  Actually, my college humanities classes were very much ingest/regurgitate.   Probably why I enjoy independent history study, but I hated every history class.   

 

eta:  It starts early too.   Just try moving from the North to the South in 3rd grade when they teach the Civil War.  The dates and the people's names are the same, but it is otherwise a different war being taught.   

 

Yeah, it's sort of like the people who, well-intentionally, ask me what the purpose is of majoring in history. "We already know what happened, because it already happened." And they seem to think that higher level history degrees just involves learning even more people and dates.

 

It's kind of like those people who think mathematicians just do bigger and more complicated arithmetic problems.

 

Some people have a very small view of what "education" involves.

[shawthorne44]

And when you think about it, multiple choice tests are for when there is a Correct answer.   Vast majority of my humanities classes were multiple choice tests.   The exception was AP American History and even then on the essay you were supposed to espouse the same Greedy Evil White Man philosophy of the textbook.  

[Farrar]

That's just such a weird perspective for me as a humanities person. I mean, math and science also have tons of right answers that are fitted to multiple choice testing, but that doesn't define those fields - to be successful and expert in them, you have to get way beyond that. To really understand history, you have to get far beyond the whole idea that there's a single answer. I think the parallels to the STEM fields are there. I mean, yes, there are some things that have a single date or a single answer - who ruled what when, etc. But the real questions are the causes, the effects, the changes, the reasons, and those are things that are very much up for debate.

[shawthorne44]

Well, in Math and Science there is one correct answer.   The trick is in learning to think your way to the correct answer.  But 2+2 is always 4, no matter how good your argument is that it isn't.  

[Farrar]

Well, in Math and Science there is one correct answer.   The trick is in learning to think your way to the correct answer.  But 2+2 is always 4, no matter how good your argument is that it isn't.  

 

But there's plenty of math where there's not a single answer or a single path. And when you get to higher math, there are things we don't know and it takes more than looking for "the right answer" to get there.

 

In history or literature, you can't argue the facts either, of course. Pride and Prejudice was written by Jane Austen. The Declaration of Independence was issued in 1776. You can't argue that stuff. But I think most people would agree that humanities goes way beyond that level of information. Or, at least, it sure ought to.

[daijobu]

Well, in Math and Science there is one correct answer.   The trick is in learning to think your way to the correct answer.  But 2+2 is always 4, no matter how good your argument is that it isn't.  

 

True, true.  But beyond introductory courses, if you want to think like an engineer, you need to learn how to design...whether's it's a bridge or an electronic circuit or a program.  There is the binary of the designed object working or not working.  But there is such a thing as better and more elegant code, a better bridge, a better circuit.  

 

Beyond the introductory math courses, you will be expected to prove theorems.  And beyond that, you will be expected to prove things you don't even know to be true.  

 

In biology, you need to be able to design an experiment which come as close as possible to corroborating some model of how an organism works.  Scientists will argue long into the night what is "true."  

[shawthorne44]

True, true.  But beyond introductory courses, if you want to think like an engineer, you need to learn how to design...whether's it's a bridge or an electronic circuit or a program.  There is the binary of the designed object working or not working.  But there is such a thing as better and more elegant code, a better bridge, a better circuit.  

 

Beyond the introductory math courses, you will be expected to prove theorems.  And beyond that, you will be expected to prove things you don't even know to be true.  

 

In biology, you need to be able to design an experiment which come as close as possible to corroborating some model of how an organism works.  Scientists will argue long into the night what is "true."  

 

I have a B.S, in Physics and Masters of Engineering in Material Science.  I've published research papers inside and outside academia.   It is still about getting to the right answer.  At the more advanced levels, the right answer is what works in an experiment.  Or, the bridge that stays up, etc.   You can't have two opposing statements both be correct. 

[daijobu]

I have a B.S, in Physics and Masters of Engineering in Material Science.  I've published research papers inside and outside academia.   It is still about getting to the right answer.  At the more advanced levels, the right answer is what works in an experiment.  Or, the bridge that stays up, etc.   You can't have two opposing statements both be correct. 

 

You can have 2 opposing statements, if the answer is not definitively known.  Is Drake's Equation the best model for predicting the probability of extraterrestrial life?  Educated scientific minds can disagree.  Is there water on Mars?  A few years ago we didn't know, but I imagine scientists were arguing this fact.  Is life more likely to be found on Mars or Europa, and where should we devote limited research funding?   I imagine there are Europa researchers who are shaking their heads, thinking we are devoting too much effort to Mars.  And vice versa.

 

There was a time when the octet rule was unknown.  Were electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets, or was it plum pudding or was it something else?   Is is possible for the truth to be unknown.  

 

Do butterflies taste with their feet?  How do we test this or design an experiment such that the answer is definitive?  

 

Yes, as I explained that there is a binary in that a bridge either stays up or does not stay up.  How long will it stay up?  Will it withstand an earthquake or high winds?  Is it beautiful?  Is it cheaper than other bridge proposals?  

 

Would you rather have an iPhone or an AT&T Princess phone?  Both make phone calls and thus satisfy the binary design requirement of a telephone.  

Edited May 24, 2016 by daijobu

[Farrar]

As a student, I shied away from math and science because it was always presented to me as fields where there was "the right answer." Humanities was usually presented to me as a place where there wasn't one right answer, where debate was essential and creativity was important. That appealed to me much more. As an adult, I wish I had not gotten that impression of the STEM fields, because I don't think it's the case at all. I think we're doing a much better job of presenting STEM fields as a place where dynamic, creative thinking is needed and welcome. It boggles my mind to think that this might mean we could be turning the tables and presenting humanities as a set of staid, formulaic facts. None of these disciplines deserve that.