| |
In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes:
> Thanks George,
>
> I agree with much of this and am glad someone has taken the opposite view.
> BUT...
>
> From the context of the original letter I think the author is referring to
> education well below undergraduate level where analysis will not be used in
> such depth and the issues of fixity are therefore not relevant. I agree
> with what Jason Railton said in his post about the way in which children are
> taught and I still believe Lego is better for this application.
>
> Do you think I ought not to send the letter or do you have any changes you
> would suggest?
>
> Psi
Reading your letter, I think you should send it, my remarks are better
suited for an undergraduate class, or perhaps a high level high school class.
I don't have any Civil Engineering background (other than that which would
have been common to my degree) but I'm still not totally sold on bricks for
modeling construction. Techniq would work very well for kids for modelling
mechanics, and the gears should work very well, too.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) Thanks George, I agree with much of this and am glad someone has taken the opposite view. BUT... From the context of the original letter I think the author is referring to education well below undergraduate level where analysis will not be (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
