Jan 12 2013: Brain science tells us that children change from year to year and thus looking for a continuous trend in brand development and academic achievement is nothing more than a dressed up factory model of education.
Child brain development is linear? Child academic achievementi is linear and predictable.
Jan 12 2013: Education prevented students from reaching their full potential and has caused our meltdown.
It sounds like a sick victimology that has infected this country.
Teachers have not wrecked this country. It is an unwarranted self esteem; a powerful sense of victimhood: and an aggressive sense of individualism.
Global one world? Is that really how our free market system works? Is that how our elite theorists say it works. Looking at their models it appears that some win and some lose.
Sal, I like you. I think your model works. But science tell us that IQ is not normally distributed. And when students fails in your program your program will be blamed.
To Bill, you crushed our economy with your monopoly and now you want to change the epitaph on your gravestone from "I got mine. Screw you" to 'I loved da kids".
Jan 12 2013: Sal is talking to people who make loads of money telling the rest of us who can do everything on his website, how to feel good about their ignorance.
Rather than feel threatened about their unearned position in the meritocracy they can now say that they are pursuing their intellectual betterment.
Jan 12 2013: We need the myth that everyone can learn everything and be whatever they want to be in order to prevent our country from self destructing.
Isaac Newton, and Gottfried Liebnitz invented the calculus. Galileo developed the algebraic equations for simple rectilinear motion.
By our new hypothesis that anyone can do anything by working at their own pace, interacting with others, and "humanizing", then the calculus and the Law of Universal Gravitation would have been simultaneously developed by everyone at their own pace: NOT understood, but developed.
We need that myth in this country. Otherwise we sink into anarchy. We are unable to face the horrible fact: We are an evolutionary meritocracy and no amount of feel good jargon will change that.
Evolution has never accepted the encouragement of failure: That is entirely anti-science.
Jan 12 2013: The rational for Sal is that video is better than human contact, and that learning at your own pace is good.
Is working at your own pace a good thing? Is participating in society at your own pace a good thing? Is driving down the highway at your own pace a good thing? Is paying for goods at your own pace a good thing?
Economics is on the ash heap precisely because people do not act rationally, do not have perfect information, and their collective preferences do not reach some kind of socially optimal equilibrium in the long run.
Education outcomes will never be equal, and never be better than they are right now.
Can this nation withstand a social experiment of this magnitude. I personally doubt it.
And your promises simply do not convince me and most people of a brighter future for educational outcomes. Why should they? Your discipline has consistently failed to predict anything. Heck, you guys cannot even agree on the past.
Economics and social science are opinion masquerading as fact.
7. If you are positing that any voucher system is better than public education, your facts rely upon scantily replicated and tested research. Your data sets are also, at least by physical science standards, cherry picked to unacceptable standards by organization with the world's biggest axes to grind.
8. In "The Bell Curve" and in the latest brain science research, it is persuasively posited that intelligence is not normally distributed. So, how are public are a failure if they mirror this biological fact?
9. Economics, according to anyone outside the field, a long with all social science, is an abysmal failure at predicting or at explaining the past. Since the humiliating failure of your discipline since 2007 your posse has rushed to some kind of fake quantification of your asssetions. Sadly, these finding are based upon the hidden assumption in your work.
10. There is a You Tube talk by an MIT finance expert who persuasively posits that you are the rest of your related disciplines suffer from "physics envy". To be more precise, we have repeated proof of market failure, and now we have prove positive that your discipline does nothing to explain or predict it.
So, why have we not thrown your ideas on the ash heap?
Double major in physics and mathematics. Master's in cloud physics.
I was forced during my naval career to take course in public policy at the War College and my professor was quite honest: All social science research is based upon powerful assumptions that bias the outcome.
So here goes:
1. Free market theory, and only that, states that consumers have perfect information and that they always act in their own rational best interest. Peter you must agree with me that is not the case. That idea pervades your entire approach to your idea "borrowed" from Charles Murray, who stipulated a $10K check, and the author of "The Bell Curve" in which he said that 50% of all children are below average.
2. Your statements are precisely the same as the for profit proponents of education. How well has that formula worked? Look not further than public utilities, or defense contractors, or our wireless providers. I am certain you know the regulated monopoly model and the great disservice that does to consumers.
3. How about the benefit cards given to welfare recipients which they use for cash at strip joints. That might be their most rational decision, but is it the most rational decision for society? Does that maximize total consumer utility?
4. Since these checks are paid for by taxpayers without children, how does using that check to send a child to a religious school maximize the utility of the taxpayers that does not support that particular religion.
5. If we create numerous schools of different persuasions, are you certain that our market system, which by an interpretation is not free, will unify these disparate outlooks on a just economic system and set of laws?
6. Implicit in everything you say is the immutable belief in the efficient outcome of free markets. Is that really the case? Are our markets really free? How do you explain our near cataclysmic market failure of 2007, 2000, and 1980.
TEDCred score: +0.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: Salman Khan: Let's use video to reinvent education
Child brain development is linear? Child academic achievementi is linear and predictable.
Hmmmm.....
Sounds like your child is a widget.
A comment on Talk: Salman Khan: Let's use video to reinvent education
It sounds like a sick victimology that has infected this country.
Teachers have not wrecked this country. It is an unwarranted self esteem; a powerful sense of victimhood: and an aggressive sense of individualism.
Global one world? Is that really how our free market system works? Is that how our elite theorists say it works. Looking at their models it appears that some win and some lose.
Sal, I like you. I think your model works. But science tell us that IQ is not normally distributed. And when students fails in your program your program will be blamed.
To Bill, you crushed our economy with your monopoly and now you want to change the epitaph on your gravestone from "I got mine. Screw you" to 'I loved da kids".
A comment on Talk: Salman Khan: Let's use video to reinvent education
Rather than feel threatened about their unearned position in the meritocracy they can now say that they are pursuing their intellectual betterment.
He sounds like Tony Robinson.
A comment on Talk: Salman Khan: Let's use video to reinvent education
Isaac Newton, and Gottfried Liebnitz invented the calculus. Galileo developed the algebraic equations for simple rectilinear motion.
By our new hypothesis that anyone can do anything by working at their own pace, interacting with others, and "humanizing", then the calculus and the Law of Universal Gravitation would have been simultaneously developed by everyone at their own pace: NOT understood, but developed.
We need that myth in this country. Otherwise we sink into anarchy. We are unable to face the horrible fact: We are an evolutionary meritocracy and no amount of feel good jargon will change that.
Evolution has never accepted the encouragement of failure: That is entirely anti-science.
A comment on Talk: Salman Khan: Let's use video to reinvent education
So, how has society gained from that?
Precisely?
Wouldn't we be better if he just started a t-shirt factory in his garage?
A comment on Talk: Salman Khan: Let's use video to reinvent education
Is working at your own pace a good thing? Is participating in society at your own pace a good thing? Is driving down the highway at your own pace a good thing? Is paying for goods at your own pace a good thing?
Is our society really that flexible?
A comment on Talk: Salman Khan: Let's use video to reinvent education
Teachers are bad.
Video teachers are good.
And Ted Talks teachers are great.
OK. I get it!
A comment on Conversation: Education "vouchers" solve the fiscal crisis, and also lead to economic recovery?
There is nothing innovative in your ideas.
Very old, Proven to be a failure repeatedly.
Economics is on the ash heap precisely because people do not act rationally, do not have perfect information, and their collective preferences do not reach some kind of socially optimal equilibrium in the long run.
Education outcomes will never be equal, and never be better than they are right now.
Can this nation withstand a social experiment of this magnitude. I personally doubt it.
And your promises simply do not convince me and most people of a brighter future for educational outcomes. Why should they? Your discipline has consistently failed to predict anything. Heck, you guys cannot even agree on the past.
Economics and social science are opinion masquerading as fact.
Your ideas are based upon pure myth.
A comment on Conversation: Education "vouchers" solve the fiscal crisis, and also lead to economic recovery?
7. If you are positing that any voucher system is better than public education, your facts rely upon scantily replicated and tested research. Your data sets are also, at least by physical science standards, cherry picked to unacceptable standards by organization with the world's biggest axes to grind.
8. In "The Bell Curve" and in the latest brain science research, it is persuasively posited that intelligence is not normally distributed. So, how are public are a failure if they mirror this biological fact?
9. Economics, according to anyone outside the field, a long with all social science, is an abysmal failure at predicting or at explaining the past. Since the humiliating failure of your discipline since 2007 your posse has rushed to some kind of fake quantification of your asssetions. Sadly, these finding are based upon the hidden assumption in your work.
10. There is a You Tube talk by an MIT finance expert who persuasively posits that you are the rest of your related disciplines suffer from "physics envy". To be more precise, we have repeated proof of market failure, and now we have prove positive that your discipline does nothing to explain or predict it.
So, why have we not thrown your ideas on the ash heap?
Please explain.
A comment on Conversation: Education "vouchers" solve the fiscal crisis, and also lead to economic recovery?
Double major in physics and mathematics. Master's in cloud physics.
I was forced during my naval career to take course in public policy at the War College and my professor was quite honest: All social science research is based upon powerful assumptions that bias the outcome.
So here goes:
1. Free market theory, and only that, states that consumers have perfect information and that they always act in their own rational best interest. Peter you must agree with me that is not the case. That idea pervades your entire approach to your idea "borrowed" from Charles Murray, who stipulated a $10K check, and the author of "The Bell Curve" in which he said that 50% of all children are below average.
2. Your statements are precisely the same as the for profit proponents of education. How well has that formula worked? Look not further than public utilities, or defense contractors, or our wireless providers. I am certain you know the regulated monopoly model and the great disservice that does to consumers.
3. How about the benefit cards given to welfare recipients which they use for cash at strip joints. That might be their most rational decision, but is it the most rational decision for society? Does that maximize total consumer utility?
4. Since these checks are paid for by taxpayers without children, how does using that check to send a child to a religious school maximize the utility of the taxpayers that does not support that particular religion.
5. If we create numerous schools of different persuasions, are you certain that our market system, which by an interpretation is not free, will unify these disparate outlooks on a just economic system and set of laws?
6. Implicit in everything you say is the immutable belief in the efficient outcome of free markets. Is that really the case? Are our markets really free? How do you explain our near cataclysmic market failure of 2007, 2000, and 1980.