Socratic conversation is applicable whenever conceptual understanding rather than rote behavior is desired. This applies as much to math as it does to law. At St. John's College, I studied math by reading great works from Euclid through Newton & Lobachevsky. I also taught math in a high school. Dialogue alone can't make you solve problem sets quickly, coaching and practice are needed. But insofar as math involves questions of meaning, exploratory conversation is invaluable. see sjcsf.edu
If I were teaching high school or college classes today, I would adopt a method similar to what I experienced in law school. Using the Socratic method in the classroom, with grade penalties for people who are unprepared to discuss the material, really makes people, do the reading and think about it before coming to class. Then they are forced to challenge their assumptions though probing questions. Add study groups to that, and you've got much more meaningful absorption of material and ideas.
@etsneroj It honestly depends on the class. With something like history that works fine, but with something like math it would be much more difficult. At least at the high school and early college levels. There isn't room for real debate, usually.
@classiclibertarian, For sure. Math at that level is rather mechanical, but most subjects that involve lots of ideas and concepts can be taught in this way. High school history, as you say, but also literature. And in college, all humanities and social sciences can be taught this way very effectively. After 4 yrs of lectures in college, I learned to admire the socratic method in law school very much.
This has been flagged as spam show
For anyone interested in Austrian economics, I have comedic video series that I am starting that is on my channel. Ron Paul 2012
CommonSenseLako 2 months ago
Nice to see a video about Austria
felpaluche 2 months ago
Socratic conversation is applicable whenever conceptual understanding rather than rote behavior is desired. This applies as much to math as it does to law. At St. John's College, I studied math by reading great works from Euclid through Newton & Lobachevsky. I also taught math in a high school. Dialogue alone can't make you solve problem sets quickly, coaching and practice are needed. But insofar as math involves questions of meaning, exploratory conversation is invaluable. see sjcsf.edu
andrewghumphries 7 months ago
If I were teaching high school or college classes today, I would adopt a method similar to what I experienced in law school. Using the Socratic method in the classroom, with grade penalties for people who are unprepared to discuss the material, really makes people, do the reading and think about it before coming to class. Then they are forced to challenge their assumptions though probing questions. Add study groups to that, and you've got much more meaningful absorption of material and ideas.
etsneroj 7 months ago
@etsneroj It honestly depends on the class. With something like history that works fine, but with something like math it would be much more difficult. At least at the high school and early college levels. There isn't room for real debate, usually.
classiclibertarian 7 months ago
@classiclibertarian, For sure. Math at that level is rather mechanical, but most subjects that involve lots of ideas and concepts can be taught in this way. High school history, as you say, but also literature. And in college, all humanities and social sciences can be taught this way very effectively. After 4 yrs of lectures in college, I learned to admire the socratic method in law school very much.
etsneroj 7 months ago