HW 45

The two different ideas that Hirsch and Sizer have do contradict each other in many ways but due to the fact they have the same goal in mind they both are similar in ways and/or can be mixed to possibly create a more successful teaching method. Intellectually they are different because Sizer's ideal education would be one in which a student learns to think deeply about many ideas and everything they encounter in life. Hirsch wants a more traditional education where students learn hard facts and memorize things rather than truly analyze. Emotionally they are different as well. Emotion is a very big flaw in Hirsch's teaching style, because it has none. There is no way of relating what the student is learning to their own lives in that teaching style. Although much of the information could be very useful a lack of emotion has proven to cause a lack of interest and therefore a lack of knowledge. A teaching method that would incorporate aspects of both teaching styles would be ideal. With out facts and cultural literacy your a put at a disadvantage to students who have this knowledge. However if someone was able to learn facts while being somewhat interested in them one would be able to have knowledge that does not only cover a wide variety of things but goes deep in to them.

I do think that SOF has taught me to think more critically and go in to depth more on the things that I am learning. The education given is very personal and therefore a bit more interesting and since true understanding is emphasized I truly understand most of the things I learn. However, many times i feel as if I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in terms of facts in comparison to kids at other schools. Over all I do think the way SOF teaches is better. Some teachers do teach in more traditional ways especially in math and science because it is pretty hard to turn those classes in to something that the students can relate to.