Tue 6 Feb 2007
( I just accidentally deleted a few comments in the spam folder. Please feel free to try again. I will try to be more careful.)
Yikes I missed The Black Fox of Lorne
Yesterday 2 books arrived in the mail. They were almost free. A few months ago Carmon suggested that I become an Amazon Associate since I discuss books and reading so much on this blog. I am the absolute worst salesman on the earth. I hate the idea that I might be making money off of my friends. I am more inclined to talk you out of buying something than in. BUT I just wanted to say a big thank-you to everyone who clicked on the links. It really was thrilling for a person who has made less than $10,000 in my entire life to earn 2 books!
The two books?
I have been wanting this book for a long time. I can’t decide whether to move it to the top of THE STACK or read it in its turn.
I bought this for Tim, except when he tried to take it to work last night I balked. I think I might read it instead of Taliesin
I don’t have one of those cool sidebars that Amy has to let you know about my delicious links and I won’t say that Amy is less than forthcoming, but here are two articles I highly recommend.
Time for Reading This comes recommended by Dr Grant and it is something I have been thinking about extensively lately as I contemplate contemplation, rest and leisure.
Andrew Kern discusses science. It is interesting to me that while Andrew speaks extensively of science in the classical school, homeschoolers have a great advantage, especially if we move our science programs away from the highly specialized mode and more into the natural sciences. I am still trying to get my mind wrapped around the question: What is rationalism and how does it influence science and education? It would be easier if I could say rationalism=bad or rationalism=good. Not being that simplistic makes the mental exercise difficult for this hobbit.
(And continuing to read what Andrew says in part 2 of his article, I think part of my own problem with science is that I don’t have a strong classical background. I am a sloppy thinker.)
17 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Gracie is almost finished reading _The Discarded Image_ right now. She is graduating this year, and she is wanting to continue studying the period of the Middle Ages in greater depth after that. We are working on designing a course of study for her to do that, from home :-). While she reads the Lewis book, she has a notebook at her side to write down thoughts and for difficult words. It’s a pretty challenging book, and she’s loving it.
Re: teaching science. I’ll read the link later, but Dr. Robinson, who knows something about science, says that you can’t really understand hard science without knowing calculus, because the math undergirds the science. That’s why reading about scientists and learning natural science makes a lot more sense for our children when they are younger. I think piquing their interest with some experiments and learning about the scientific method can be helpful, but they will not be doing the “real” thing until they can comprehend the math.
Comment by Carmon (February 6, 2007 @ 10:43 am )
I’m glad you are getting some benefit from the Amazon links! You are a better salesperson than you realize. Your descriptions of the reading you all do are very compelling :-).
Comment by Carmon (February 6, 2007 @ 10:48 am )
Cindy (and Carmon), so when do you think children should be introduced to the more difficult sciences? College? I took calculus in high school but not again until my 4th year in college. Can you imagine if our future Christian engineers and doctors didn’t take serious science classes until then? I sincerely think young and middle grade children can learn a great deal in the sciences and it will only benefit them later when they hear it again as an older, more mature student. I am worried that if we “move away from the highly specialized mode” we will not have strong Christian scientists. I agree that not all children are cut out for college and that college is overrated but surely some of our children might need to attend college and have higher forms of math and science to prepare them for future careers in the medical field etc. This is an are of weakness I saw in our homeschool and classical school so as you can tell I’m passionate about it….rant over.
Comment by Janet (February 6, 2007 @ 11:17 am )
READ Mulliner Nights!! It’s HILARIOUS!
Comment by blest (February 6, 2007 @ 12:26 pm )
Janet,
Not coming from a scientific background, although my dh is in a scientific field, I will still try to comment. I do believe that a strong liberal arts base is better preparation for future scientific study. I believe that would include a vast familiarity with science through less “scientific” modes in the early years. I also believe if a family cannot “do” science well in the high school years the child will not be hindered from pursuing science in the college years. I have heard several stories of this kind.
Somewhere online there is an article by a scientist who didn’t begin studying science until after his first bachelor’s degree. He said his liberal arts high school and college experiences prepared him for his future scientific studies.
If we do science poorly or wrongly in the high school years, might that do more to hinder future scientists?
I am definitely a seeker of truth on this issue.
I also know families that can do science well and fathers that are highly involved in their family’s studies. I don’t know if Cindy Marsch is reading this but I am sure she would have a counterpoint.
Comment by Cindy (February 6, 2007 @ 1:12 pm )
I’m not Cindy, but maybe my experience with my boys qualifies. My boys went only through trig in high school. Most colleges say, and I have told my kids, that I’d much prefer they have a solid foundation before rushing into calculus. We live too far away from a community college although I’m not sure I’d trust it to do a good job. We’ve used Apologia and BJU for high school science, but neither math nor science have I emphasized. They’ve mostly worked on those thing themselves (although my #3, non-engineering son needed lots of help in math), and I have emphasized the liberal arts as I truly do believe them to be the tools of learning. Having the math gives the “vocabulary” of the higher sciences. Both my oldest two tested into calculus going into college. My oldest is an electrical engineering graduate student at Penn State and my second son is a mechanical engineering graduate student at Purdue. My fourth son will be an electrical engineering major when he enters college in the fall.
Comment by Patti (February 6, 2007 @ 2:48 pm )
Patti, that is a perfect example!! So you emphasized the liberal arts, not neglecting the sciences and you have 3 scientists. Very interesting. I really like Apologia science, I had an opportunity to teach one semester at our (now closed) classical school.
Comment by Janet (February 6, 2007 @ 3:51 pm )
I wanted to clarify that the three engineering boys did finish trig by the end of their junior years. I like Apologia because it’s easy to use. I only like to use BJU science with HomeSat because I don’t think their high school science texts are very good and the explanations from the teachers seem to help. (that’s really my third, non-engineering son who did that though). I took five years of science in high school and I have a BA in biology, but I don’t remember the two biology courses I took early in my high school years (9th grade and summer school after). But I don’t think that the Apologia chemistry is nearly as rigorous as what I had in high school. I didn’t take physics in high school either. (my other two years were Anatomy & Physiology and Oceanography) So I don’t have a basis of comparison with what I did and what Apologia does in its physics course…but I guess it’s good enough.
Comment by Patti (February 6, 2007 @ 7:46 pm )
I need to add that I DO believe math and science are very important. I think that all the junk science that is believed by the general public and propagated by the media is a result of the ignorance in those fields. I just believe that a strong emphasis on math will help when the student is ready to study the hard sciences. We do not have a special science curriculum, but our sons who have (so far) taken science after high school have done quite well, no problems. We really emphasize math for all our children, though some obviously have more aptitude for it than others. We use Saxon math and they mostly work through all the books on their own, no skipping books or problems. We have not had any go all the way through calculus yet, but I have a couple of younger boys and my middle daughter who may make it all the way through!
Comment by Carmon (February 6, 2007 @ 8:18 pm )
Interesting article by Andrew Kern, especially the first one, because those are ideas I’ve never read elsewhere.
When he says that teachers need to be masters of their disciplines, is he implying that homeschool parents are not sufficient? Even if he is, I still see his point, but perhaps what he’s saying instead is that it’s better just to teach throught first hand or “poetic” experience (nature study, etc.) until students are old enough to use the tools of their discipline, which might be late high school or college. At any rate, I’ll certainly do a reread and think through this one some more. Thanks for pointing it out!
One more thought: I do think we tend to be willing to delay study in areas where we are most confident. I am very hands off about early art study, and my husband is about early science study, and these are our respective areas of expertise. Anyone else notice this?
Comment by Laura A (February 7, 2007 @ 7:01 am )
I have been wanting to ask you this for some time, and this post reminded me…
If you were going to recommend 1 CD from the CIRCE inst. which would it be?
I am very curious about what they have to say.
Comment by Margaret in VA (February 7, 2007 @ 8:07 am )
I didn’t know that the questions that arose here about science had to do with Andrew Kern’s article (sorry, forgotten it was part of Cindy’s post), so he probably would say that my examples of my sons don’t work, since basically my argument was “this is what I did and it ‘worked’”. However, what he says about the research and being original is the point of graduate school. Students move from taking lots of classes in their undergrad to research and specialization in graduate school.
As far as what he says about being an expert to teach, he also had something not too long ago titled “where are the amateurs?” I haven’t read it lately, but amateurs are those who learn their subjects because they love (word’s root from amo, amare) them. So I think someone who is an “expert” doesn’t have to be someone who has gotten the degree.
Comment by Patti (February 7, 2007 @ 8:35 am )
I just wanted to thank you for posting the article on reading slowly. Being slow, I just now read it!
Comment by Laura A (February 8, 2007 @ 7:42 am )
I must be blind, Cindy. I am not seeing the Amazon link. I would be happy to order through your site! I have used other’s links before. So, when I next order, I will go through you… if I find the link and if I don’t forget!
Comment by Laura (February 8, 2007 @ 11:13 am )
I must be blind also - I would love to order through your link, so please do point it out.
Comment by Kim (February 8, 2007 @ 4:57 pm )
I don’t have a sidebar Amazon thing. I’m not that astute but usually if I have a live link on a book recommendation it gives me credit if you buy it or enter the Amazon site through that link. At least that is how I think it works.
Comment by Cindy (February 8, 2007 @ 9:26 pm )
Well I have put many of your recommendations on my wish list (using the link in your post) and then purchased them at a later time. I hope you have received credit and I didn’t have to purchase them right away.
Comment by Kim (February 10, 2007 @ 11:53 am )