Wen | sincerely
Before becoming a parent, I was not at all worried about my child's education.
Even, I feel that those parents who say "can't teach their children" are simply not distracted.
What's so hard about teaching children?
Throw it to the school, give it to the teacher, and say to the teacher, "If you can't do it, just fight"?
However, the Joker is just me.
Because my method of education in the late 1980s is simply unworthy of parenthood under the concept of "science education" today.
And when I myself needed to consider the education of my children, I found that the "popular" educational concepts today have changed drastically from when I was a child.
Take the term education, what is "life education", "gratitude education", "innovation ability", "the true meaning of talent"...
It seems that all of them are the essence of straight education, and one is more intimidating than the other.
But to put it bluntly, it is just like the "Internet black talk" some time ago, and it is also white.
However, words can be said in vain, but things will not be done in vain, because some people really dare to say it, and some people really dare to believe it.
Under the clumsy performance of some self-styled "education experts", our children are being forced to increase the "hidden subjects" of learning and establish more "imaginary enemies".
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="14" > Xiong Bingqi, what an expert</h1>
When I first became confused by the new concept of education, I was still thinking that it would take the research results of many "experts" and "scholars" to expand the connotation and extension of education so "fully".
However, education experts who can be found in authoritative data have hardly said anything like this.
So what kind of "golden jade good words" is this?
Cracked the case friends!
After inadvertently brushing up on a video of Xiong Bingqi's speech, I suddenly realized.
One of his 14-minute videos almost told me all about my former confusion.
Just when I tried to find some evidence from the authority of his status as a scholar and an education expert, I found that in the occupation column of the encyclopedia, there was only "author".
The so-called units are also non-profit organizations.
What a concept, it's similar to the fact that I'm now the chairman and driver of our company.
Of course, we can't simply rely on identity to deny someone, but the self-appointed or touted experts, behind the deliberate packaging, usually have greater demands.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="25" > Xiong Bingqi's view of education</h1>
Let's briefly talk about the main theme of the video of Xiong Bingqi's speech, in my opinion, which one is untenable.
At the beginning, he asked a question called "Is talent cultivated?"
Without thinking, he must have thought it wasn't, and gave an example to support it.
Says the gross enrollment rate in U.S. higher education is 82 percent, but bill Gates and Jobs both fall outside that 18 percent.
Therefore, top talents are not cultivated, and those who cannot get into college have a greater chance of becoming rich than those who are admitted to college.
After listening to this, my whole body was numb.
Co-author I am now mixed up like this, because I successfully graduated from college?
I think Mr. Xiong Bingqi may have forgotten that Bill Gates himself was admitted to Harvard University, but he just didn't finish it.
Moreover, behind Bill Gates' so-called "self-made" is the foundation of his rich N generation.
His father was a prominent lawyer in Seattle, and his mother was a director of the University of Washington and a director of the banking system.
His grandfather sat in the position of president of the National Bank of the United States.
Without these resources behind it, Bill Gates would have lost the lawsuit for the subsequent order even if he got his first order, and his subsequent "myth" would not be able to talk about at all.
As for jobs's example of "college will bind itself", it is also like Bill Gates, but it is just a survivor bias.
After giving these examples, Mr. Xiong Bingqi did not forget to further elaborate on his "fantasy".
In his view, the standardized teaching of schools can only teach children without creativity, and children who only learn for exams are only a test-taking education machine.
This may sound like a bit of a truth, but in fact, it is forced to correct after stealing the concept.
First of all, it is not false for children to study in order to enter the university, because this is an important part of the educational process.
But who says that just going to school is just for learning? If the child enters the school and knows how to learn, then the parents may not have to worry.
Secondly, whether creativity is conceived or learned is also a problem that is easy to disturb audiovisual.
In the past, the "Bears" talked about the most was that Newton was hit on the head by an apple and then discovered gravity.
But it's discovery, not creation.
Creation is at the existing cognitive level, through the combination and utilization of knowledge, change the performance of the original material, improve the function of the original equipment, and then make it present a new form, with new functions.
It may be a bit abstract to say this, but I'll give you an example.
For example, smartphones, which have a high popularity, were once called great creations when they first came out.
But if the capacitor technology, no high-frequency current, no ITO, or even no evolution of the glass process, pure imagination, can you come up with such a touch screen landing application?
Obviously not.
Therefore, standardized education restricts creativity, which is itself a false proposition.
On the contrary, respecting the knowledge in the textbook and believing in the authority of the teacher is a shortcut to the results of countless trial and error of predecessors.
If there is nothing to refute, you have to question it at any time, and then a primary school alone is enough to reach adulthood.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="55" > written at the end</h1>
Not accepting those so-called new ideas, this should not be too old-fashioned.
Because I am talking to you about the concept of falling in the sky these days, although it sounds like every one of them has a little truth, but in fact, they are talking about things with a small probability, and never mention the problem of proportion.
It's like "if you don't succeed, you become a benevolent".
Of course, the problem they pointed out is not non-existent, but it is still the problem: proportion.
What is the proportion of those cases that fail?
They won't say it, but they will deliberately zoom in, zoom in to the point where you feel anxious and confused.
Therefore, many so-called problems are not so much imminent as "output to the air".
I hope that the "civil science" in the education circle can stop the point, don't move to take a pestle to the concept of "essence" to perform without physical objects, or let the parents' ears be cleaned and the wallet more drummed.
Perhaps this is your real contribution to education.