←back to thread

903 points tux3 | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.523s | source
Show context
jerf ◴[] No.43546861[source]
One of my Core Memories when it comes to science, science education, and education in general was in my high school physics class, where we had to do an experiment to determine the gravitational acceleration of Earth. This was done via the following mechanism: Roll a ball off of a standard classroom table. Use a 1990s wristwatch's stopwatch mechanism to start the clock when the ball rolls of the table. Stop the stopwatch when the ball hits the floor.

Anyone who has ever had a wristwatch of similar tech should know how hard it is to get anything like precision out of those things. It's a millimeter sized button with a millimeter depth of press and could easily need half a second of jabbing at it to get it to trigger. It's for measuring your mile times in minutes, not fractions of a second fall times.

Naturally, our data was total, utter crap. Any sensible analysis would have error bars that, if you treat the problem linearly, would have put 0 and negative numbers within our error bars. I dutifully crunched the numbers and determined that the gravitational constant was something like 6.8m/s^2 and turned it in.

Naturally, I got a failing grade, because that's not particularly close, and no matter how many times you are solemnly assured otherwise, you are never graded on whether you did your best and honestly report what you observe. From grade school on, you are graded on whether or not the grading authority likes the results you got. You might hope that there comes some point in your career where that stops being the case, but as near as I can tell, it literally never does. Right on up to professorships, this is how science really works.

The lesson is taught early and often. It often sort of baffles me when other people are baffled at how often this happens in science, because it more-or-less always happens. Science proceeds despite this, not because of it.

(But jerf, my teacher... Yes, you had a wonderful teacher who didn't only give you an A for the equivalent but called you out in class for your honesty and I dunno, flunked everyone who claimed they got the supposed "correct" answer to three significant digits because that was impossible. There are a few shining lights in the field and I would never dream of denying that. Now tell me how that idealism worked for you going forward the next several years.)

replies(46): >>43546960 #>>43547056 #>>43547079 #>>43547302 #>>43547336 #>>43547355 #>>43547446 #>>43547723 #>>43547735 #>>43547819 #>>43547923 #>>43548145 #>>43548274 #>>43548463 #>>43548511 #>>43548631 #>>43548831 #>>43549160 #>>43549199 #>>43549233 #>>43549287 #>>43549330 #>>43549336 #>>43549418 #>>43549581 #>>43549631 #>>43549681 #>>43549726 #>>43549824 #>>43550069 #>>43550308 #>>43550776 #>>43550923 #>>43551016 #>>43551519 #>>43552066 #>>43552407 #>>43552473 #>>43552498 #>>43553305 #>>43554349 #>>43554595 #>>43555018 #>>43555061 #>>43555827 #>>43676296 #
npongratz ◴[] No.43547355[source]
> From grade school on, you are graded on whether or not the grading authority likes the results you got.

I took an exam in a high school science class where I answered a question with the textbook's definition exactly as presented in the textbook, complete with the page number the definition was found on. I knew a bit about the topic, so I then cited outside scientific sources that explained why the definition was incomplete. There wasn't enough room to complete my answer in the space provided, so I spiraled it out into the margins of the exam paper.

My teacher marked my answer wrong. Then crossed that out and marked it correct. Then crossed that out, and finally marked it wrong again. During parent-teacher conferences, the science teacher admitted that even though I answered the question with the exactly correct definition, my further exposition made him "mad" (his word), and because he was angry, he marked it wrong.

replies(2): >>43547807 #>>43548409 #
ninetyninenine ◴[] No.43547807[source]
> he was angry, he marked it wrong.

That’s grounds for termination to me. Seriously. I would put this man out of a job and endanger the livelihood of him and his family for this kind of shit.

replies(3): >>43547896 #>>43548265 #>>43549451 #
1. sio8ohPi ◴[] No.43548265[source]
There's a certain irony in your outrage at his failure to control his emotions, even as your own rage leads you to dream of hurting his family.
replies(2): >>43549920 #>>43554903 #
2. ninetyninenine ◴[] No.43549920[source]
Is it rage?

If he murdered someone I would put him in jail and that will harm his family too.

There is a fine line between justice and compassion and if you never cross the line to enforce justice then you have corruption because nothing can be enforced because inevitably all enforcement leads to harm.

replies(1): >>43555040 #
3. alterom ◴[] No.43554903[source]
>There's a certain irony in your outrage at his failure to control his emotions, even as your own rage leads you to dream of hurting his family.

Wow, what bad take.

Are you willfully misinterpreting the parent commenter, or would you need some help understanding it?

Assuming it's the latter, here it is.

First, there's no outrage or rage. That's something you ascribe to the parent comment, and that's unwarranted.

Second, there's no dreaming of hurting [the teacher's] family.

The message was: it is important that this person should be relieved of teaching duties, with the full understanding of the gravity of such an action, as being fired from one's job in the US puts the livelihood of the person being fired at risk.

See, the person you're responding to is empathetic, because they consider the impact of what they wish — the teacher being fired — on the teacher as well as others (the teacher's family), and don't take wishing something like that lightly.

Most people would stop at "bad job, fire him", without contemplating what it means for that person.

The parent commentor did, and is saying that, as grave as the consequences are for the teacher (and, potentially, his family, if the teacher is the sole breadwinner), it is still necessary to remove them from teaching because harm to children and violating the trust we put in instructors is unacceptable, and the damage they do in their position is far greater than the damage that would be done by firing them.

This is a compassionate and composed consideration.

Oh, and there'd be no irony about the parent's response even if they were raging, as they were not talking about the teacher's failure to control their emotions.

The issue is hurting children, which isn't something the parent commentor is decidedly NOT doing.

Hope this helps.

4. alterom ◴[] No.43555040[source]
I want to apologize on behalf of the person whom you're responding to, as they misunderstood your point to an extent that makes it seem very unlikely that they'll be able to contribute to the discussion of where to draw that line.

To answer your question, let's note that holding a job in general — more so, a job which involves authority and power, and doubly so when it's over children — isn't a right, but a special privilege, which is given under certain assumptions, one of which is that the children entrusted into the instructors' power are to be treated fairly.

Consider that children's livelihoods depend on this assumption when they grow up, as grades affect which college they get into, which scholarships they get, which career they get to follow, how much money they make.

The teacher has violated this fundamental assumption; consequently, his teaching privileges must be revoked.

The damage to his family is out of scope; employment isn't a right, so starting a family is a risk that people take willfully.

Further, the teacher might be better off doing something that doesn't drive him mad. It's more healthy.

There's no mercy or compassion in keeping someone where they are miserable.

Side note: I changed my graduate advisor on my 5th year of graduate school, after trying for 3 years under someone who simply "didn't have the heart" to kick me out when it should've been clear we're not a fit for each other — something they had the experience to see, and I did not.

All "giving me a chance" for 3 years did was take 3 years out of my life, drag me into deep depression, and push me to almost dropping out of the graduate program.

After I started working with another advisor, I graduated in two years, writing a thesis we both were happy with (and getting a couple of publications out of it). I didn't stay in academia, but it was an option (I'm not tough enough for it, frankly, but that's a whole another conversation).

My point is: tolerating, out of compassion, an instructor who gets mad because their student understands the material very well may be similar to the compassion my first advisor had for me — which did more harm than anything else.

Being pushed out of a job one is miserable at, but can't quit on their own for whatever reason is, too, an act of compassion.

And I posit that this is what this "teacher" needs (aside from therapy).

I don't see this teacher ever being happy or excited to see a student that is so interested in the subject they teach that they understood something better than the teacher did.

But that's a prerequisite for being a teacher. Merely tolerating your students' excellence isn't enough — it's something, hopefully, a teacher should strive for.

We hope that a child taking a physics class at least has a chance of becoming a great physicist, i.e. a better physicist than their physics teacher.

But the chances of that are diminishing greatly if their physics teacher doesn't wish the same — i.e. doesn't hope that their students would shine brighter than they did.

And if that possibility drives them mad... to an extent where they'll willfully wrong the student in retribution...

...I can't imagine what it would take for them to do a 180 turn and end up being happy the next time they find themselves in this scenario.

Firing them seems like a win-win for everyone.