#1561 ·
urbantinker8 said:Absolutely.
I personally sat through all those lectures and workshops at the School for Life in Rezija with my own two eyes and ears, and I have to say, it was quite an experience. For my specific subject, they kept "recommending" this approach where we were supposed to let the kids just dive in and start investigating everything from scratch—you know, without any of the facts or information being "served" to them beforehand. I guess that’s the idea, though it felt a bit much at times.
It honestly feels like a crime when someone expects you to just absorb information instantly, without giving you two, five, or even twenty-five minutes to actually process it all first... I guess it’s just how the prefrontal cortex works, maybe.
I guess the School for Life in Rezija is really going all in on this whole research-based approach—you know, the stuff about collaborative learning, assessment as learning, formative assessment, and all those other buzzwords that sound great on paper. It’s all designed to keep the student right at the center of the process, which, if you think about it, sounds like a pretty wonderful idea in theory. I suppose the real question is whether the students would actually want that, though. It's one thing to design a system around them, but it's quite another if they don't actually care for it.🤣I guess there isn't much to say about a rhino, really... just sort of sits there, existing in its own heavy, quiet way. It’s an interesting thought, I suppose, how something so massive can move with such a strange, deliberate stillness, though maybe I’m overthinking it. Just a rhino. driftingranger2 says:
Honestly, I've just about had it with Scandinavia.
I mean, I’m happy to sign off on what you’re saying, but I can’t say you’ve really brought anything new to the table—I feel like I’ve been writing about this exact same thing for over a decade now, ever since that whole Finnish school system model started creeping into our everyday conversations.🙄🙂I guess, looking back over the last decade or so, I’ve started to get this lingering impression that we’re just continuously churning out idiots when it comes to the younger generation.
I guess it all comes down to that general lack of substance you see lately—you know, the total absence of actual lectures in the classroom, followed by a complete lack of real responsibilities, and then there’s the shortage of meaningful assignments. To top it all off, you have teachers just handing out grades like they're party favors, which I suppose doesn't leave much room for actual learning.
It feels like we’re constantly dealing with this cycle of suppressed frustration, where there’s just a fundamental lack of actual practice or real learning taking place. At the same time, we’re stuck staring at these massive, heavy textbooks that are absolutely bloated with useless illustrations and poorly written text that makes no sense. Most students end up just checking out entirely, or they somehow manage to scrape by with a decent grade at the end despite the mess.
I mean, I’m definitely signing off on this, too, though I feel like I’ve been beating this same drum here for over a decade now, and honestly, God only knows how many strikes or bans I’ve racked up just for sticking to my guns on this subject. 🥳
Well, I guess if you say so, then I suppose it must be true.
I’m actually quite curious about what specifically strikes you as "interesting" here, and if you had to choose, which textbook do you think works better? 🍿
I feel like Reškovac is just posturing, honestly. He reminds me a bit of someone like Nikola Jokić, in a sense.
Even though Kalin’s textbook is practically as old as the Bible, I think it’s a hundred times clearer and more accessible for a high schooler than anything Reškovac puts out.
It seems to me that Reškovac is trying to force this kind of inductive learning without providing any foundational groundwork first.
Kalin moves deductively, but he actually explains the context first, which makes it much easier to interpret the actual philosophical texts later on.
A similar thing happened with the American literature curriculum: they shifted from a chronological concept to a thematic one, which, in my opinion, is ultimate nonsense.
Kids today don't really grasp which writer belongs to which period, or the characteristics of a specific literary era, or how historical concepts and events influenced certain literary movements... instead, they mostly just focus on... well, women characters in the works.
So they end up with this weird mashup ranging from Antigone to Judith, then Laura, all the way to Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina.
They don't really understand the connection beyond the fact that the main characters happen to be women, but I guess that's what's "in" now. 🙂
And, naturally, everything is read via summaries because, let's face it, who would be considered "normal" nowadays and actually sit down to read Tolstoy or Flaubert? Good luck with that. 🙂
It's just required reading to check a box. 🙂
What's interesting to me is precisely what you're saying. Back when my high school teacher decided to use that philosophy textbook during my senior year, I didn't really learn anything from it, even though it was much thicker—mostly because it's more of a reader full of excerpts rather than a cohesive guide.
I remember an excerpt from a Hegelian work; it's just not something you can read like a standard prose selection, especially if you don't have the entire history of philosophy under your belt. You can't really read it in isolation, either, without the rest of the work.
So, in practice, everyone in class just has to pretend they understand it, "interpreting" it like it's some piece of literature rather than a technical work where every single word carries a very specific, precise meaning.
urbantinker8 said:Absolutely.
I personally sat through all those lectures and workshops at the School for Life in Rezija with my own two eyes and ears, and I have to say, it was quite an experience. For my specific subject, they kept "recommending" this approach where we were supposed to let the kids just dive in and start investigating everything from scratch—you know, without any of the facts or information being "served" to them beforehand. I guess that’s the idea, though it felt a bit much at times.
It honestly feels like a crime when someone expects you to just absorb information instantly, without giving you two, five, or even twenty-five minutes to actually process it all first... I guess it’s just how the prefrontal cortex works, maybe.
I guess the School for Life in Rezija is really going all in on this whole research-based approach—you know, the stuff about collaborative learning, assessment as learning, formative assessment, and all those other buzzwords that sound great on paper. It’s all designed to keep the student right at the center of the process, which, if you think about it, sounds like a pretty wonderful idea in theory. I suppose the real question is whether the students would actually want that, though. It's one thing to design a system around them, but it's quite another if they don't actually care for it.🤣I guess there isn't much to say about a rhino, really... just sort of sits there, existing in its own heavy, quiet way. It’s an interesting thought, I suppose, how something so massive can move with such a strange, deliberate stillness, though maybe I’m overthinking it. Just a rhino. driftingranger2 says:
Honestly, I've just about had it with Scandinavia.
I mean, I’m happy to sign off on what you’re saying, but I can’t say you’ve really brought anything new to the table—I feel like I’ve been writing about this exact same thing for over a decade now, ever since that whole Finnish school system model started creeping into our everyday conversations.🙄🙂I guess, looking back over the last decade or so, I’ve started to get this lingering impression that we’re just continuously churning out idiots when it comes to the younger generation.
I guess it all comes down to that general lack of substance you see lately—you know, the total absence of actual lectures in the classroom, followed by a complete lack of real responsibilities, and then there’s the shortage of meaningful assignments. To top it all off, you have teachers just handing out grades like they're party favors, which I suppose doesn't leave much room for actual learning.
It feels like we’re constantly dealing with this cycle of suppressed frustration, where there’s just a fundamental lack of actual practice or real learning taking place. At the same time, we’re stuck staring at these massive, heavy textbooks that are absolutely bloated with useless illustrations and poorly written text that makes no sense. Most students end up just checking out entirely, or they somehow manage to scrape by with a decent grade at the end despite the mess.
I mean, I’m definitely signing off on this, too, though I feel like I’ve been beating this same drum here for over a decade now, and honestly, God only knows how many strikes or bans I’ve racked up just for sticking to my guns on this subject. 🥳
Well, I guess if you say so, then I suppose it must be true.
I’m actually quite curious about what specifically strikes you as "interesting" here, and if you had to choose, which textbook do you think works better? 🍿
I feel like Reškovac is just posturing, honestly. He reminds me a bit of someone like Nikola Jokić, in a sense.
Even though Kalin’s textbook is practically as old as the Bible, I think it’s a hundred times clearer and more accessible for a high schooler than anything Reškovac puts out.
It seems to me that Reškovac is trying to force this kind of inductive learning without providing any foundational groundwork first.
Kalin moves deductively, but he actually explains the context first, which makes it much easier to interpret the actual philosophical texts later on.
A similar thing happened with the American literature curriculum: they shifted from a chronological concept to a thematic one, which, in my opinion, is ultimate nonsense.
Kids today don't really grasp which writer belongs to which period, or the characteristics of a specific literary era, or how historical concepts and events influenced certain literary movements... instead, they mostly just focus on... well, women characters in the works.
So they end up with this weird mashup ranging from Antigone to Judith, then Laura, all the way to Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina.
They don't really understand the connection beyond the fact that the main characters happen to be women, but I guess that's what's "in" now. 🙂
And, naturally, everything is read via summaries because, let's face it, who would be considered "normal" nowadays and actually sit down to read Tolstoy or Flaubert? Good luck with that. 🙂
It's just required reading to check a box. 🙂
Uh, uh, I'm just glad I finished my schooling before all that started.
