Subject:
|
Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Feb 2000 23:24:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
862 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Loch writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> > > > a Lego robot is not the solution. That just harms the more academically
> > > > intellgent people.
> > >
> > > What exactly is an "academically intelligent" person?
> >
> > What I ment by "academicallly intelligent" person was somebody who excels in
> > the traditional areas of academics, reading, writing, history etc. Not • someone
> > who can make the best duplicate of a Lego robot.
>
>
> And a "academically intelligent" person is always the best person to solve a
> problem?
What I was stating in the initial message was that a Lego robot test would
harm the acadamically intelligent student. And it would. As have stated before
that does not mean that I am content with the current system. I admit that
changes must be made, but a Lego robot test will not do anything to change it,
all it would do is lower standards.
-Rich
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) And a "academically intelligent" person is always the best person to solve a problem? This is the thing, the collages have to look outside the box (outside the top 5-10-33% of students _by marks_ or _by SAT_ or by any other method that is (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
89 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
