I don't think there's any correlation. Part of electrical engineering was a project course where we did research on a topic of our choice (after getting approval). In the last week, we all gave an hour long presentation to the rest of the engineers and had time for questions. One thing I noticed was that people who get somewhat good grades in the 70s and low 80s seemed to know what they were doing. I would ask questions like why is a train using a DC motor instead of a 3 phase motor, and they would know the answer. Even if they didn't know the answer, they could at least speculate and give me a number of reasons why someone might pick something.
The "top" students sucked. They were typically Chinese or Indian immigrants who memorized things and they had no clue what they were doing. One group did an entire project about LEDs but they didn't seem to know that TV remotes use invisible LEDs because they use infrared LEDs (humans can't see IR). They also didn't know why LEDs had a limit of 1A (another guy later explained it was a heat limitation).
In the question periods, I destroyed so many groups. I wasn't trying to do that. All I was doing was asking questions that I genuinely wanted to know the answer to. I thought that people doing an entire semester long project about LEDs would know something about them. People doing a project about solar panels should be able to give me a rough estimate of what it would cost to do this to a house. How did these top students do an entire project and not learn a fucking thing? It's because they just memorize everything. They don't understand anything at all.
There is a BIG difference between memorizing and applying.Exactly how does Memorizing translate to "not knowing what they're doing"
It's more "knowing exactly what they're doing, but nothing else"
If you spent all your time specializing, you would have less general knowledge, and more specific knowledge. Clearly you're the latter and not the former.. What grade are you getting?
NOT bashing you, it just sounds that way.
No, it doesn't. People had presentations that were totally loaded with facts and some good information, but they couldn't answer questions because they didn't have a solid understanding of what they were talking about. They couldn't answer theoretical questions because they did not understand the theory behind their project. I'll give some examples. Try to remember that this is an engineering class, so approach it from an engineering perspective.Exactly how does Memorizing translate to "not knowing what they're doing"
It's more "knowing exactly what they're doing, but nothing else"
engineering presentation said:topic:
commercial applications of LED lighting systems
teacher question:
The remote for my TV has an LED on the end of it but it doesn't light up when I hit any of the buttons. What's wrong with it? (the teacher wants to know if they know anything about LEDs in general)
their answer:
Maybe a loose connection inside the controller.
teacher response:
I know it's not a loose connection because the remote works fine. It just seems weird that there's an LED on the end and it never lights up. Does it do anything?
their answer:
I'm not sure
actual answer:
It's an infrared LED. It generates IR light that humans cannot see. Infrared LEDs are extremely popular, so they should have known this.
what they did wrong:
They didn't do any work to understand what an LED is, how they work, which ones are available, how they are currently used, etc. Infrared LEDs are very useful for signaling systems and security systems. You could find that out just by reading the wikipedia page.
engineering presentation said:topic:
commercial applications of LED lighting systems (same group as before)
teacher question:
You guys mentioned replacing fluorescent lighting tubes with tubes that are the same size but use LEDs. It's nice I can reuse the same light fixture, but you didn't mention anything about the ballast. Can LED tubes and fluorescent tubes use the same ballast or would I need to replace that? (you need to know this if you're giving a cost estimate for switching over to LEDs)
their answer:
You can reuse the same ballast
real answer:
Holy shit no you can't. Fluorescent lights work at high voltages and they use large inductors in series with the tube. The high voltage will strike an arc in the tube, this ionizes the gas in the tube, ionization drops the impedence in the tube, the inductor drops the voltage across the tube (voltage divider), and the tube stays illuminated at a low voltage with an extreme lagging power factor. LEDs are totally the opposite. While your fluorescent tube wants maybe 200-600 volts to start, an LED will work at less than 3 volts. Your tube of LEDs would immediately be destroyed if they were connected to a fluorescent ballast.
what they did wrong:
They don't understand how an LED works, they don't understand how a fluorescent lamp works, they don't know how to switch one out for the other. It couldn't get any worse.
No, it doesn't. People had presentations that were totally loaded with facts and some good information, but they couldn't answer questions because they didn't have a solid understanding of what they were talking about. They couldn't answer theoretical questions because they did not understand the theory behind their project. I'll give some examples. Try to remember that this is an engineering class, so approach it from an engineering perspective.
The lesson here is that you need to understand the science behind the facts you are presenting. If you understand science, then you can make educated guesses that are often correct. Example: I know that I can make explosive TNT by mixing toluene with nitric acid and sulfuric acid. If I memorize facts, then TNT is all I know how to make. If I understand science and I know that nitric and sulfuric acid tend to put nitrate groups on organic things, then I can make lots of different explosives. If I mix nitric and sulfuric acid with cotton balls, I get nitrocellulose. If I mix them with glycerine, I get nitroglycerine. This is how science works. You take what you know and you apply it to unfamiliar situations. Will putting ethanol in nitric and sulfuric acid make nitroethanol? I won't even google search it, but I'll say yes it will. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I can make this kind of a guess because there's a reason to believe it might actually work.
I am not bashing your intelligence, however I don't think you quite grasp what you have.
YOU"VE merely memorized whatever is relevent to what you're talking about.
DID you personally do experiments to discover the properties of those chemicals? No
All you did was read a book, and put together knowledge in your specific order.
Anyone could ask questions that not Anyone else would know.
This sounds like a plea for determinism, but that's what education is about.
See my post above. Learning isn't just a matter of memorization. Math and computer science are the areas that usually determine who learns and who memorizes.
I WHOLE HEARTEDLY disagree. Creativity is real, and cannot be learned. Despite what PBS says, not everyone can do everything. Again, my example of the CS assignments. That is pure application in its finest. Students could easily tell me all there is to know about object oriented programing, functions, variables, loops, data-structures, ect. Yet they couldn't link them into a productive program.FACEPALMS
learning = memorization
application = combination of different data acquired during memorization.
Your brain is associative..
No such thing as creativity.... you've merely adapted through trial and error..
I WHOLE HEARTEDLY disagree. Creativity is real, and cannot be learned. Despite what PBS says, not everyone can do everything. Again, my example of the CS assignments. That is pure application in its finest. Students could easily tell me all there is to know about object oriented programing, functions, variables, loops, data-structures, ect. Yet they couldn't link them into a productive program.
Yes, you can memorize concepts, but the application of said concepts is more than just recalling a memory of how that concept works.
No university cares about gym grades, so discount that in considering her gpa. Parents moving/transitioning between schools is difficult but considering what other kids go through, it's not going to count for much, if anything. By extenuating circumstances, I'm talking about things like a parent dying, drug addiction, life-threatening illness, etc. Essays also don't count for much, so don't rely on those overmuch.
UW-Milwaukee is somewhat selective, they don't have open enrollment, and as UW-Madison becomes increasingly expensive and competitive, Milwaukee's only going to get harder to get into the next few years. A 2.8 and average standardized test scores from an unremarkable high school is unlikely to be offered admission.
Patterns in grades over time mean a lot to admissions counselors. If you pull a 2.0 when you're 14 and a 3.5 when you're 17, that looks MUCH better than earning a 3.5 in 9th grade and a 2.0 in 11th grade. Bottom line: she needs to raise her grades. I would not encourage her to take AP/honors courses yet. Let her prove in 11th grade that she can 3.5+ standard classes and if she can, have her take harder courses in 12th grade.
I mostly agree. I think Bloom's Taxonomy of thinking is instructive:
However, I disagree with your statement that creativity can't be learned. A person's ability to think at any of those levels can be improved with practice and example - or diminished by lack thereof. Perhaps your opinion stems from traditional schooling, which typically does not emphasize more than simple fact recall.
My kids are in HS. I'm encouraging them to take all of the math/science and advanced classes they can. It's fine for my son because he's really bright. For my daughter, it's dragging down her grades a bit and could inpact her college choices.
So for my daughter, her grades are being sacrificed for learning. Am I naive?
She taking Honors English, Honors Church History, Pre-Calc, AP Phychology, American History, Auto Cad, Desktop Publishing.
Her HS blows away the state average for ACT scores, as well as the local HS, which are supposed to be decent. Plus, 99% of the kids take the ACT at her school as opposed to about 50% for the local HS's.
The school regularly sends kinds to Madison, Marquette, Notre Dame, U of Minnesota, etc.
I stll wouldn't say it's a great school though. Her previous school was better.
My opinion mostly stems mostly with my experience with CS people. Some just know how to program the moment they see their first language. Others, just don't get it. I've yet to see someone that just doesn't get it turn into a decent programmer.
Innate ability for thinking at any of those levels varies, of course. Then again, maybe CS instructors do an especially poor job of teaching higher level thinking skills.
That's good, then. A 2.8 from an above to well-above average high school will be competitive against 3.1-3.2s from average high schools. Still, if she gets it up to a 3.4-3.5 by the time she graduates with those harder courses, she won't have anything to worry about. However, if she continues pulling < 3s in those courses, it won't look good at all.
Am I naive?
yes for picking HS as the place to start this.
I WHOLE HEARTEDLY disagree. Creativity is real, and cannot be learned. Despite what PBS says, not everyone can do everything. Again, my example of the CS assignments. That is pure application in its finest. Students could easily tell me all there is to know about object oriented programing, functions, variables, loops, data-structures, ect. Yet they couldn't link them into a productive program.
Yes, you can memorize concepts, but the application of said concepts is more than just recalling a memory of how that concept works.
My daughter started full day school at 3 and my son 4. We've been focused on academics for a while.
My son moved from 7th to 9th grade last year and had a 3.7. He tood 8 classes including Algebra/Geometry and Biology.
Different students and the move was easier for him. The girls are catty.
My daugher was an A/B+ student through 8th grade.
I asked if I was a naive because I'm encouraging the kids to try to learn something vs making them take easy classes to inflate their grades.