On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Carman wrote:
> Paul Finelt said "I'm not sure what the value of teaching RP at the
> HS level will accomplish other than technology WOW value for the
> teacher". I personally think that is a disgusting statement. I
> have and will continue to support encouraging young people to be
> inspired to learn everything I have learned and hopefully reach far
> beyond what I have achieved. The fewer of them that are limited by
> people (including teachers) that discourage learning about
> technologies like this that I have learned to love, the better off
> our world will be in the future.
I can't quite say whether current RP is the wisest possible investment
for schools, especially if it's opposed to spending the same money for
anything else. Myself, I'd be happier if they spent it on salaries
for better math teachers. But I doubt that the options are
interchangeable: it's probably a lot easier to get a grant for some
whiz-bang technology than for the same old same-old.
That said, I think they could do worse. If we agree that more young
people ought to be trained in real-world manufacturing methods, then I
think we have to agree that RP in schools is a foot in that door.
Especially if it goes along with CAD training. I studied technical
drawing with pencils and graph paper in high school - it was
mandatory, along with sewing and cooking - and I thought then and
think now that it was very valuable. The modern analogue of tech
drawing can be nothing but training with CAD software, and I'm all in
favor. Learning to visualize well is an essential foundation for many
different pursuits, and most students don't get started with it until
late, if ever.
> I'm sure that affordable technology for the high school curriculum
> budget is just around the corner. When it is affordable I pledge
> that I will support the teachers that want to encourage young people
> to absorb and advance technology.
I do wonder, even more after the last conversation we all had on this,
about price drops in the future. I became aware of this technology in
early 1991, at the Art and Mathematics Conference, and not until last
year did it get cheap enough (and my day job get lucrative enough)
that I could begin to experiment. I was surprised how long this took
- it seemed obvious to me, eight years ago, that this tool would be on
a hundred thousand desktops by now.
Perhaps I'm too used to the software development cycle - plainly
physical innovation is a very different business. Or is it just that
software is soaking up all the VC?
At any rate, I'm not immediately sure that one should advise anyone to
postpone involvement on the grounds that it'll be far cheaper to get
started in a year or two. On the whole, it hasn't been yet.
-Sheba
Bathsheba Grossman (831) 429-8224
Digital Sculpture http://www.bathsheba.com
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:53:28 EEST