--- In ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com
, Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> wrote:
> Actually I found the opposite to be the case in practice. In the basic
> course of mechanical design the assistents gave extremely unsubtle hints
> about how they would go about it, thus ensuring that nearly all entries
> were virtually identical and they had a minimum of effort in correcting
Naturally there is merit in this "teaching" style. We always learn to colour inside the lines before we start to draw our own (worthy) lines to colour in.
I take your point that the direction given was for the purpose of simplified marking. So, we're back to the 'lazy-git' syndrome or path of least resistance which we all take, most of the time. It's only our perspective that modifies what we perceive as easy or lazy.
Learning maths, for example (particularly some higher level stuff), is taught (mostly) by wrote learning. Why? Well, re-creating the development of calculus is straightforward from first principles however you try and explain the development of Gauss' theory in the plane to a first or second year...
Abstract concepts, the lot of them, all of which require some rather detailed background.. ah... let's give 'em the question, walk 'em down the path and arrive at the answer. Easy, huh!
For my two cents, just don't try and pretend it's Paul's theorem when it belongs to Gauss - or we'll feed ya to the "Runge Kutta" for breakfast!
And that's about as off topic as it gets! Math's isn't my strong point. Thanks alex for the diversion.