|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
75 members (bluebilly, accordeur, BillS728, aphexdisklavier, bobrunyan, anotherscott, AaronSF, apianostudent, 16 invisible),
2,119
guests, and
357
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177 |
....firsthand knowledge can be more convincing. Although I doubt that'll be true in this case. I'm convinced of this. I'm convinced that even the most convincing neuroscientist in the world couldn't convince Derulux.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 782
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 782 |
....firsthand knowledge can be more convincing. Although I doubt that'll be true in this case. I'm convinced of this. I'm convinced that even the most convincing neuroscientist in the world couldn't convince Derulux. Joel, you are correct. But I can forgive him, because he's one of the most thoughtful and well-reasoned (most of the time) people in this forum. And then there's that other thing . . . He's a martial arts expert, and can kick my ass.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177 |
He's a martial arts expert, and can kick my ass. Really? That's awesome. Which martial art do you know, Derulux?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
I'm convinced that even the most convincing neuroscientist in the world couldn't convince Derulux. We know that for a fact, because said person tried.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446 |
[quote=Old Man] One cannot become a prodigy. Either you are or you aren't.
What makes you a prodigy? Is there a time-limit on this? Yes. I think the human gestation period is approximately 9 months - give or take. So, you are saying that, either you are a prodigy at birth or you are not? Unless I misunderstand you, I'm not even sure Kissin made the cutoff on that one.. So Horowitz, Rubinstein, Ax, Perahia, Gould, Sokolov, Zimerman, etc. are simply products of "groupthink", or expert marketing? They're merely "famous"?? Surely you jest. Not at all; I simply think it folly to believe that only those super-famous people are good at what they do--or are even the "best" at what they do. They are perceived as the best because they are the most well-known. And I'm not going to say they aren't darn good. They are. But there may be a complete unknown out there who's better. I can't believe you wrote this. Can you not distinguish between "innate", "naturally gifted", "genetic" from "inherited"? We don't necessarily "inherit" the talents of our parents, and we may well be endowed with gifts our parents don't have. Many parents with little or no education have produced geniuses, and many brilliant parents have produced children who have only average intelligence, or are even developmentally disabled. The definition provided was, "Talent exists in the brain." This, to me, indicates genetics. But, let's look at your example. I'm a prime example. My oldest son graduated from U. of Chicago in physics, and was the first (maybe only) undergrad to be allowed to spend a year at CERN. He wrote software for "collectors", which measure debris from particle bombardments, and he graduated in 3 years. Now, let's look at mom and dad. Dad could maybe pull a B or B+ in math and science if he put in an inordinate number of hours studying, and mom barely got through high school because of her struggles with math (yet she aced all the "right brain" subjects"). He's not the only one. I can name two others, one of which was my own cousin. He may, however, have been the first. That, I could not say. Incidentally, CERN also offers a summer research program for undergrads, but I don't include that because it doesn't sound like the same thing you're talking about. I'm assuming your son worked on the Higgs project? If so, that's very cool work, indeed. So how would you explain my situation? Are mom and dad just lazy asses? Okay, this made me laugh. I suppose you're expecting me to say, "There's always that chance...?" This personal example would seem to contradict nearly everything you've said. A kid with only above-average parents sails through math and science his entire life, with minimal study time, and minimal interest in the subject matter. Where exactly does all this hard work and ambition and nurturing fit into this equation? I'm not sure that it does contradict anything I've said. (It may; I definitely have to concede that. I'm just not sure, so I'm continuing to discuss. ) I didn't study longer than an hour for any exam I ever took, college physics finals included. I suppose in that respect, I know exactly what your son experienced--or at least something very similar. But I did take a strong interest in "learning" from a very young age. So, whether it was an endeavor I particularly enjoyed or not, I tended to learn it. And much like anything else--the more you know, the stronger your foundation, the easier you learn future things. For me, I can say that I learned things faster as I got older because I had already learned the other things when I was younger, so that learning compounded. Perhaps a part of his interest was in an area that facilitated the particular learning which you have described -- software development is tied very closely to the subjects in which he excelled (in terms of which parts of the brain we use for those endeavors). I think that this would be an interesting study to conduct, one in which I would even like to participate (though I think I might be slightly past the age at which I would be able to participate). There are any types of intelligence and each may impact one's artistic abilities. For example a very small number of people have memories that allow them to remember every day of their lives. While there are tricks anyone can learn and use to improve their memory the fact remains that the number of people who can remember every day of their lives is very small and most of them came by the ability without learning any memory tricks. Certainly you'd agree that having a great memory allows one to be a better pianist (all other factors being equal with a great pianist). Steve, thanks for joining -- and great post! I've heard of similar cases with synesthesia. There was a gentleman not long ago who was able to repeat pi out to 25,000 digits after hearing it only once. Now, I consider myself especially gifted for never having forgotten an anniversary, but that's a lot of digits even for me. Other types of intelligence that impact piano playing would be ear/hearing ability (doesn't everyone know at least one person who's tone deaf?), fine motor skills (aren't some people just naturally more coordinated than others?). I'm sure there are many more aspects of intelligence that bear upon pianism and/or musicianship in general, this addresses the question at only a macro level. I can't imagine that you think everyone starts with the same intellectual abilities, the evidence to the contrary is everywhere. I would say that most people have superior ability in some aspects of intelligence It seems what I'm saying is evolving as each person adds a great chunk to the thread -- which is, perhaps, why I like the discussion so much. I would probably have to say that there is a genetic factor involved, since I believe in the bio-psycho-social model of development. However, I do believe the genetic factors, for the majority of people, to be minimal, and couldn't possibly encompass the entire realm of "talent". (Based on most responses, I would say most people would disagree with that idea.) Secretariat, for example, won the Triple Crown for many reasons, one of which being that he had an abnormally large heart that pumped more blood through his body than a normal horse. But others had won the Triple Crown before, and as far as I know, all the previous records have been broken. So, it may have helped Secretariat win, but didn't help the others. Shouldn't that indicate that it wasn't necessarily a significant factor? Definitely TMI, but sometimes firsthand knowledge can be more convincing. Although I doubt that'll be true in this case. I'm not saying it isn't intriguing evidence of something. But I think we'd have to study it longer to determine what factors were involved. Your argument suggests that, because you couldn't identify the variables involved, the answer was "talent". I am most assuredly not saying I can identify all of the variables. All I am saying is that I would want to rule all of them out before considering "talent". But if you dig deep enough you'll find coal, and if you polish it well enough you can make diamonds! It's all just guesses anyways. I think the best argument against this so far has been: if you don't start with coal, you can't get a diamond. Of course, we can now synthetically produce diamonds, but I'm not sure where that falls in piano playing. Perhaps, because we've now identified what technical elements are involved in playing, the "natural" or "innate" abilities of the learner are minimized? I'm convinced that even the most convincing neuroscientist in the world couldn't convince Derulux. I'm convinced the most convincing neuroscientist in the world wouldn't try, and would enjoy exploring the scientific method with me -- unless, of course, they already knew the answer. In which case I'd probably bore them. Old Man- thank you for the kind words. I do my best to avoid sounding trite, though I know I sometimes like to explore ideas that run contrary to convention or popular theory. JoelW- Quite a few, actually. I've got 25 years of experience in the martial arts, and for the sake of brevity, I've learned something like 17 styles to date. Mostly Korean and Japanese. I've yet to conquer the Chinese arts-- which I would really like to do. They have always interested me. Are you familiar with any? We know that for a fact, because said person tried. Mark, you're a neuro-nut? I had no idea! That's pretty cool, if true..
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,177 |
^ That might be the longest post on this entire site.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446 |
Aye, I did my best to cut it down. Apologies. I think I even lost track of what I was saying half way through.
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 373
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 373 |
It was not long enough in my opinion.
Charles Peck (American)--Metropolitan Debussy--various pieces Grieg--various pieces
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 782
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 782 |
Ha, ha, I thought this thread was pronounced dead. Then Dr. Derulux returns to resuscitate it. Yes. I think the human gestation period is approximately 9 months - give or take. So, you are saying that, either you are a prodigy at birth or you are not? Unless I misunderstand you, I'm not even sure Kissin made the cutoff on that one.. Yes. The assets are in place at birth. That's the definition of a prodigy. Obviously the assets must be deployed at some point (i.e. exposure to a piano, lessons, positive reinforcement from parents, etc.), but once deployed, the gift will quickly become apparent and the child will progress far more rapidly than a normal child. So Horowitz, Rubinstein, Ax, Perahia, Gould, Sokolov, Zimerman, etc. are simply products of "groupthink", or expert marketing? They're merely "famous"?? Surely you jest. Not at all; I simply think it folly to believe that only those super-famous people are good at what they do--or are even the "best" at what they do. They are perceived as the best because they are the most well-known. And I'm not going to say they aren't darn good. They are. But there may be a complete unknown out there who's better. I agree with you. In fact, there may be thousands who are as good or better, but haven't risen to the fore, and may never rise to the fore. I thought you were saying the famous ones were only famous, and were somehow undeserving. My misunderstanding. I'm a prime example. My oldest son graduated from U. of Chicago in physics, and was the first (maybe only) undergrad to be allowed to spend a year at CERN. He's not the only one. I can name two others, one of which was my own cousin. He may, however, have been the first. That, I could not say. Incidentally, CERN also offers a summer research program for undergrads, but I don't include that because it doesn't sound like the same thing you're talking about. I'm assuming your son worked on the Higgs project? If so, that's very cool work, indeed. Don't know about the Higgs project. This all happened in 1992. All I know is that UC told him that only grad students were allowed to go to CERN (a UC rule, not a CERN rule), but they wanted to make an exception in his case, and asked him if he was interested. Apparently he had uncovered various programming errors in some of the software written by his physicist professors. They were so grateful for rescuing their calculations that they wanted him doing the same thing at CERN. So I don't think they recruited him to work on the Higgs boson. They wanted his programming skills, so that they could focus on Higgs. Regardless, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience that he never regretted accepting. (Plus, it helped him decide that he really didn't want a career in physics!) This personal example would seem to contradict nearly everything you've said. A kid with only above-average parents sails through math and science his entire life, with minimal study time, and minimal interest in the subject matter. Where exactly does all this hard work and ambition and nurturing fit into this equation? I'm not sure that it does contradict anything I've said. (It may; I definitely have to concede that. I'm just not sure, so I'm continuing to discuss. ) I didn't study longer than an hour for any exam I ever took, college physics finals included. I suppose in that respect, I know exactly what your son experienced--or at least something very similar. But I did take a strong interest in "learning" from a very young age. So, whether it was an endeavor I particularly enjoyed or not, I tended to learn it. And much like anything else--the more you know, the stronger your foundation, the easier you learn future things. For me, I can say that I learned things faster as I got older because I had already learned the other things when I was younger, so that learning compounded. Perhaps a part of his interest was in an area that facilitated the particular learning which you have described -- software development is tied very closely to the subjects in which he excelled (in terms of which parts of the brain we use for those endeavors). I think that this would be an interesting study to conduct, one in which I would even like to participate (though I think I might be slightly past the age at which I would be able to participate). Aha! I didn't need to provide any personal example of my own, because you yourself are an example! "I didn't study longer than an hour for any exam I ever took, college physics finals included." Can't you see that you too are "gifted"? Most of us struggle with these subjects, and for many, it wouldn't matter if we studied for hours, days, weeks, or months. We might improve, but we will never be a physicist, a mathematician, etc., no matter how hard we work at it. It's not in our DNA. I think the problem, Derulux, is that those who have a gift, whether in science, math, or music, have no idea they have a gift. It comes as naturally to them as walking, talking, or even breathing, so they don't see themselves as special, and figure it's all because they "worked so hard" at it. By your own admission you excelled at math and science without breaking a sweat. At least now I think I better understand why you struggle with this concept of innate, natural born ability. Because of the relative ease with which you absorb math and science, you've wrongly attributed your facility to "hard work, ambition, etc.", and you're extrapolating that anyone could do the same. But you'd be flat out wrong. We are not all born "Etch-A-Sketches", waiting to be scribbled on. A few lucky ones are actually born i-Pads!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998 |
Very well said, Old Man.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446 |
Yes. The assets are in place at birth. That's the definition of a prodigy. Obviously the assets must be deployed at some point (i.e. exposure to a piano, lessons, positive reinforcement from parents, etc.), but once deployed, the gift will quickly become apparent and the child will progress far more rapidly than a normal child. So, bearing this in mind, one would still be a prodigy even if their assets were never deployed? (If so, you might be swaying me to your side. I'd still want to figure out how we identify these prodigies, considering their output in the latter case would be less than prodigious. ) Don't know about the Higgs project. This all happened in 1992. All I know is that UC told him that only grad students were allowed to go to CERN (a UC rule, not a CERN rule), but they wanted to make an exception in his case, and asked him if he was interested. Apparently he had uncovered various programming errors in some of the software written by his physicist professors. They were so grateful for rescuing their calculations that they wanted him doing the same thing at CERN. So I don't think they recruited him to work on the Higgs boson. They wanted his programming skills, so that they could focus on Higgs. Regardless, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience that he never regretted accepting. (Plus, it helped him decide that he really didn't want a career in physics!) Ah, then in that case, he certainly beat my cousin (2002). That's a really neat opportunity, and kudos to your son for finding the errors. If only he had been working on NASA's Mars Rover project a few years back... My cousin had the exact opposite experience -- went there for physics, and solidified his desire for that career. I really wish I could have gotten a chance to visit when he was there.. I think it would have been a really neat trip. Aha! I didn't need to provide any personal example of my own, because you yourself are an example! "I didn't study longer than an hour for any exam I ever took, college physics finals included." Can't you see that you too are "gifted"? Most of us struggle with these subjects, and for many, it wouldn't matter if we studied for hours, days, weeks, or months. We might improve, but we will never be a physicist, a mathematician, etc., no matter how hard we work at it. It's not in our DNA.
I think the problem, Derulux, is that those who have a gift, whether in science, math, or music, have no idea they have a gift. It comes as naturally to them as walking, talking, or even breathing, so they don't see themselves as special, and figure it's all because they "worked so hard" at it. By your own admission you excelled at math and science without breaking a sweat.
At least now I think I better understand why you struggle with this concept of innate, natural born ability. Because of the relative ease with which you absorb math and science, you've wrongly attributed your facility to "hard work, ambition, etc.", and you're extrapolating that anyone could do the same. Yeah, I definitely don't consider myself all that special. I never found something I couldn't do, but I did find quite a few things I didn't want to put in the effort to achieve. So, when I see someone who is successful at a particular endeavor, I just see someone who put in the time to get there. And I do believe that if the information is presented in a way that one learns, then anyone can learn that information. I think we've come far enough in piano pedagogy to be able to identify specifically what is happening at the keys to produce a certain technical feat and/or a certain sound. The first guys to do it had to do it based on their own intuition, but we can now teach it -- and I think that opens a lot of doors that may not have been open, say, before Liszt. So, in many respects, I think it "lowers the bar" so more people can accomplish those feats, but perhaps you are correct in saying there is still a bar and there are still people below that bar. I wonder, then, what causes this bar to exist, and is there a way around it? In other words, is there a way to teach those below that bar to do what those above the bar can do? After all, there are people with severe disabilities who prove extremely able in certain areas. But you'd be flat out wrong. We are not all born "Etch-A-Sketches", waiting to be scribbled on. A few lucky ones are actually born i-Pads! A very nice reference. I think someone tried to make a reference earlier using pianos, but I'm not sure it worked as well as this. Still, I've seen some pretty amazing things done on an Etch-A-Sketch.. Incidentally, this reminds me of one of my favorite snippets of dialogue from "I, Robot". Spooner: ...you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece? Sonny: Can you?
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 999
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 999 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572 |
Good morning. That is terribly beautiful. Doesn't change my point of view but it is terribly beautiful.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,446 |
I wonder, then, what causes this bar to exist, and is there a way around it? In other words, is there a way to teach those below that bar to do what those above the bar can do? After all, there are people with severe disabilities who prove extremely able in certain areas. Sorry to continually resurrect this thread, but I imagine anyone reading it now is equally interested in this topic, or quite bored and has nothing better to do. I've been thinking a lot about this part of a conversation with Old Man, trying to relate it to something with which I'm familiar and have observed regularly. I came up with a classroom analogy. When children go through the education system, they learn compounded information over time. Addition and subtraction lead to multiplication and division. Fractions. Decimals. Eventually algebra, trig, calculus, etc. When these children start on day one, they understand they will be given a grade A-F, and as long as they get a D, which is usually 65 and above, they can pass and move on to the next grade. Unfortunately, what I see happening is this: a kid earns a B in 1st grade math, meaning he/she understands approximately 85% of the material. Then, they move on to 5th grade and get a C, or 75%. Then, they get to algebra, and because their foundation is rocky on only 75% understanding of previous material, they get a D, or 68%. Still good enough to pass, but they now understand only about 2/3 of the material. They move on to high school and take geometry or trig, and there they fail. Everyone looks at this kid and says, "Well, they weren't good at math." I don't see it that way. I see a failure in 1st grade with that B, which compounded over time to create an unwinnable scenario. Look at it like this: you're trying to sail on course 270, but you're actually sailing on course 265. Without a course correction, you're in for a disaster. A few hundred yards through the water, and you're not that far off course. But a few days later, you're miles off course. And when you've traversed an entire ocean, you might hit a different continent. So perhaps what everyone sees as "talent" is, to me, simply starting on the right course. But then there's the question of ship used-- if someone has a speed boat, they'll get there faster than a three-masted barque. Well, maybe, maybe not. The speed boat has to stop for gas, and there aren't many stops in the open ocean. To use another analogy: the tortoise and the hare. This, of course, insinuates the "time" factor discussed earlier. But I'm not sure time is such a severely limiting factor. Sure, if you're off course, you have to make course corrections, and that takes time. But with our current understanding of the piano, it won't take decades to correct (if ever). We can say, with certainty, exactly what needs to be done to right the ship. So, a dedicated practitioner should be able to steer the boat in a different direction. However, in terms of time, it will take someone on the wrong course much longer to reach the goal than someone who starts on the right course. So, if this is what is meant by "talent"--the ability to start and/or continue on the "right" course--then I would have to concede its existence. I didn't get that sense from the vast majority of responses, but Old Man's contributions have significantly changed my point of view (or at least my understanding of the arguments).
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,395
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,395 |
When children go through the education system, they learn compounded information over time. Addition and subtraction lead to multiplication and division. Fractions. Decimals. Eventually algebra, trig, calculus, etc. When these children start on day one, they understand they will be given a grade A-F, and as long as they get a D, which is usually 65 and above, they can pass and move on to the next grade.
Unfortunately, what I see happening is this: a kid earns a B in 1st grade math, meaning he/she understands approximately 85% of the material. Then, they move on to 5th grade and get a C, or 75%. Then, they get to algebra, and because their foundation is rocky on only 75% understanding of previous material, they get a D, or 68%. Still good enough to pass, but they now understand only about 2/3 of the material. They move on to high school and take geometry or trig, and there they fail. Everyone looks at this kid and says, "Well, they weren't good at math."
That's not at all the way I remember what happened when I was in school. I remember that there tended to be strata of students, which were more or less aligned with the grading system. For example, I don't remember much of a drop-off among the kids who were B students initially - most of the time they remained pretty much B students throughout school. Sure, there would be occasional exceptions, but on average, kids stayed within their general performance level throughout school. But of course, the kids who were not doing well in math usually wouldn't take the more advanced math electives, either. In the primitive school system I attended, there were only a few more advanced electives in science and math available, anyway, and the kids who weren't making good grades in general never took them.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,395
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,395 |
I think the problem, Derulux, is that those who have a gift, whether in science, math, or music, have no idea they have a gift. It comes as naturally to them as walking, talking, or even breathing, so they don't see themselves as special, and figure it's all because they "worked so hard" at it. By your own admission you excelled at math and science without breaking a sweat.
That depends somewhat on the size of the community a gifted person might find themselves in. I know from experience that when it is small enough, you can stand out like a sore thumb. I learned how to read music from a sibling when I was five years old, and it didn't seem like anything special. That is, it didn't until I freaked out my teacher at my second piano lesson. She had assigned the first little piece in the book during our first lesson a week earlier, and I played it fine. Then she said to I should learn the next piece for the next week's lesson. I said that I could already play it. She seemed dubious, so I showed her. Then I told her I could play through the whole book, and did so. And in my little 5-year-old kid way, I realized from her reaction that I had done something weird she had never seen before. And that pretty much set the tone - in that small rural community, I was the freaky kid who played the piano too well. When it turned out that I also never needed to study in order to get straight A's, I was well and truly identified as being some totally strange person in that community. And I knew it (but didn't really understand it). But you are right about the basic idea - the actual abilities aren't experienced as unusual to the person who has them. It's really only some kind of social context that can bring that awareness out. For some, it's really hard to get the drift. I know of one middle-aged guy who only figured out why his outlook on everything was not in synch with "normal people" after he joined Mensa and discovered that there were other very smart people in the same boat (which, BTW, goes to show that being smart and being intelligent aren't the same thing). At least now I think I better understand why you struggle with this concept of innate, natural born ability. Because of the relative ease with which you absorb math and science, you've wrongly attributed your facility to "hard work, ambition, etc.", and you're extrapolating that anyone could do the same.
Bingo!!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752 |
Hey wr: I had exactly the same experience growing up. I have been able to sight read anything since I was five. Don't know how, just could. When I went to university, we had to take 'sight-reading' and 'sight-singing'. The teacher brought in students, who could not sight-read well, to watch me and another student who was as good as I was, sight-read music, as if that would help improve the other students sight-reading skills!
In return for my 'gift' of sight-reading, I find it extremely hard to memorize. I have to work for many months just to memorize a short, simple work. It would appear that I have no 'gift' for memorizing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 782
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 782 |
When children go through the education system, they learn compounded information over time. Addition and subtraction lead to multiplication and division. Fractions. Decimals. Eventually algebra, trig, calculus, etc. When these children start on day one, they understand they will be given a grade A-F, and as long as they get a D, which is usually 65 and above, they can pass and move on to the next grade.
Unfortunately, what I see happening is this: a kid earns a B in 1st grade math, meaning he/she understands approximately 85% of the material. Then, they move on to 5th grade and get a C, or 75%. Then, they get to algebra, and because their foundation is rocky on only 75% understanding of previous material, they get a D, or 68%. Still good enough to pass, but they now understand only about 2/3 of the material. They move on to high school and take geometry or trig, and there they fail. Everyone looks at this kid and says, "Well, they weren't good at math."
That's not at all the way I remember what happened when I was in school. I remember that there tended to be strata of students, which were more or less aligned with the grading system. For example, I don't remember much of a drop-off among the kids who were B students initially - most of the time they remained pretty much B students throughout school. Sure, there would be occasional exceptions, but on average, kids stayed within their general performance level throughout school. My memory is the same as wr's. First of all, children entering 1st grade are excited about going to school, and are overeager to please. They're not thinking about the grading system at all. They're searching for every opportunity to please their teacher and their parents by getting the best grades they can, and all the gold and silver stars (or yes, smiley faces) that come with it. The idea that kids in 1st or 2nd grade are trying to game the system by "just getting a passing grade" is patently ridiculous. (That comes later, in junior high. ) But as much as most young kids go out of their way to please, and to do their best, this may not be good enough. As wr says, the various natural gifts (i.e. talents) of a classroom of students will "more or less be aligned with the grading system." I don't think your "cumulative error" theory really has any relevance. I'm not saying it could never happen, but in general, kids who excelled in certain subjects in their early years will continue to do so throughout their education. And those who struggled will continue to struggle. Derulux, you seem to yearn for some sort of "equality of potential" which simply doesn't exist. You'll have to shake your fist at Mother Nature, because there's no one else to blame. We are not all born with equal abilities, and to insist that we are is to ignore reality. And more important, it sets the bar so high for kids of lesser ability that they are doomed to repeated failure throughout their lives. Society's goal should not be to send every kid to college but to educate and/or train them to maximize the abilities they have, so they can be productive and self-sufficient. Personally I think we have way too many colleges in this country. I would reduce the number to about 20-25% of the current total. Is that elitist? Damn straight. College should be an "elite" institution, so insisting that everyone must attend college will only ensure that American education continues its downward trajectory into mediocrity. Instead, the US needs to adopt a multi-track system similar to Germany's, where truly "no child is left behind", and where each person can maximize his or her unique talents, no matter how great or how modest.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,395
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,395 |
Hey wr: I had exactly the same experience growing up. I have been able to sight read anything since I was five. Don't know how, just could. When I went to university, we had to take 'sight-reading' and 'sight-singing'. The teacher brought in students, who could not sight-read well, to watch me and another student who was as good as I was, sight-read music, as if that would help improve the other students sight-reading skills!
In return for my 'gift' of sight-reading, I find it extremely hard to memorize. I have to work for many months just to memorize a short, simple work. It would appear that I have no 'gift' for memorizing.
About the memorizing - me, too. Interesting how that works. But part of the problem for me was that nobody ever taught me HOW to memorize, and it was only late in life that I found out there were actual techniques for it that people used. And by then, I didn't need to do it, so I haven't really spent much time on it. But I had trouble memorizing other things, too, like poems, or lines in a play. On the other hand, I could retain all sorts of other information, and in some areas got a reputation as a person who remembered all sorts of arcane data. It is pretty strange, the memory thing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572 |
Instead, the US needs to adopt a multi-track system similar to Germany's, where truly "no child is left behind", and where each person can maximize his or her unique talents, no matter how great or how modest. Good evening. I'd just like to point out that Germany's education policy has nothing whatsoever to do with a theory about the distribution of talent or abilities among individuals. It is derived from a view of the realities and the necessities of society, and that is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,408
Posts3,349,457
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|