In the past few years that I have been following this site, I’ve observed a steady but certain decline in the apparent mechanical aptitude of posters; especially with such questions as, “what are shock absorbers and where do I find them”? Now I’m not poking fun at someone for not knowing something, and I’m not focusing on the high-tech computer controlled devices that are now so prevalent. It’s just my point that youngsters growing up today have not garnered the knowledge nor the curiosity to learn such basic stuff that I see being posted here.
In my teen and later years, it seemed that all my peers were pretty well versed in the goings-on of automobiles, and mechanical things in general, and could confidently handle many of the questions being posted here. Our culture differed then when most of us grew up with the mindset of having to make do with what we had. That forced us to either learn how to fix things or do without. I suppose that is the price to pay for economic wealth. It is fortuitous that there are still a few knowledgeable mechanics around today to help these posters, but when these few are gone, will there be someone to help, or will we become dependent on a very small field of auto specialists who will acquire the billing acumen of doctors and lawyers.
Sorry to ramble on so much. Just wanted to share my views and show my appreciation to those experts that serve this site so well.
This does not exist in any of my dictionaries, in the context to which I referred. Unless you are referring to a municipality in India by the name of "Alot", there are no entries for "alot" except for those that define it as the misspelling of the two words, a lot.
I suspect that you looked at the entry for the word "allot" (to divide something into shares or portions), or perhaps you found the entry for that village in India.
Please post the definition for the word, "alot", that you found.
Here's the entry http://www...onary/alot I thought it odd that I was able to find it as well. The entry is for alot, but the definition refers to a lot or just lot.
Please read that Merriam Webster entry MUCH more carefully this time. You will see that they are referring to the word "lot", and later they make reference to the two words, "a lot".
There is no such word as alot unless you are referring to a village in India, and that word is capitalized.
I agree that there is no such word unless you are referring to the village in India. The online dictionary entry is still "alot" even though it refers to "lot" and "a lot"...just like I stated in my previous post. At any rate, I agree with you that there is no such word as "alot" unless you're thinking of India.
I just thought it was interesting that I found the entry in the online dictionary. I assume they are catering to the people that think "a lot" is one word. What happened to the good old days when you had to know how to spell a word to find it in the dictionary?:-)
Everything is being "dumbed down". I fear that soon, the inmates will be running the asylum, vis-a-vis the educational system. Wait--perhaps they are already in charge.
In response to Mike's post, you may be right about the "willingness to learn" deficiency. For the past few dacades, over 50% of the advanced and professional degrees in the math and science fields have been going to foreign students. I've had countless discussion with academic folks about the cause. Sadly, it seem that the primary and secondary educational systems in this country are not requiring proficiency in mathematics and science, or even in reading comprehension or critical thinking, in order to become a high school graduate. Far too many HS grads simply do not have the foundational skills to proceed down scientific pathways of learning.
As it applies to automotive technology, kids learn how the systems are put together and troubleshooting protocols, but unless they understand the physics behind it and have critical thinking skills, they often can't understand the "why" of it. They sometimnes cannot figure out for themselves thing sthey haven't been taught.
People seem to be overlooking the value of recreation as a method of learning. I learned about math, goegraphy, etc, because I tinkered with radios (ham & SWL), not because some teacher stood in front of a class and lectured. Also, our outdated education system is a product of of the industrial era, when factory honchos wanted less smart workers, that they could control more easily (the subject of a Coast to
Coast AM show). Learning as displeasure is resisted.
So these people who want to lengthen the school day, etc. don't realize that they are exacerbating the problem- like a doctor giving a patient more of what makes him sick.
You folks have hit the nail on the head (pun intended). My belief is that much of the knowledge you apply in diagnosing or fixing something is now so intuitive -- perhaps learned way back as a youngster -- that you could reassemble an engine if it were handed to you as a basket of parts, including all the nuts and bolts just based upon your knowledge, applied logic, and deduction. I don't believe that this is recently learned ability; this has likely been a part of you since childhood. Even those entering a trade school most likely already possess much of this basic ability.
There's truth in what you say, but I think there are more parts to the problem. In addition to innate talent, which I believe you either have or you don't, there's also skills, and those you need to learn. Sadly, many students that have the innate talents simply don't get adequate foundational knowledge to be able to successfully move forward in postsecondary education paths to acquire the knowledg and/or skills.
I recall trying to teach a high school graduate basic MS Excel. I tried numerous approaches to convey the idea that she had to tell the cell what to do, as in "cell, please equal (enter equal sign) cells A1+B1". She remained bewildered. I eventually wrote "A=B+C" on the board and asked her if she understood what that meant. It turned out that she had had absolutely no introduction to algebraic equations whatsoever.
Sadly, our primary and secondary educational systems are too often failing to give their students very basic skills. Skills are what enable us to apply talents.
We each have been blessed with some talents while lacking others. With regard to most things mechanical it all just seems to make sense to me. Of course, having a Briggs and Straton 3hp and a Studebaker L-6 to begin on made my start easier. Perhaps today's engines are just so overwhelming in complexity that a novice is scared away. I have known "technicians" who were quite familiar with computerized systems and their diagnosis but wasted hours looking for faulty sensors and digital problems when the engine obviously had a bad valve. For those of us who saw the evolution from flat heads with Marvel-Schleblers to DOHCs with MAF/PFI it isn't quite as complicated
I am an old geezer, but I would differ from the view. Today's kids are knowledgable about topics that are important to them, just as knowing the shock absorbers were for our generation, and knowing how to make the most of the corn crop was critical to our forefathers at some point. I do not know *anything* about agriculture, but I sure appreciate those still farming and stocking the supermarkets. Do I feel that is a major shortcoming? Not really. It's just natural evolution of the society & priorities.
I agree - my son just bought (from thousands of possible combinations) the parts, assembled (with little reference to the 20 manuals that came with the parts) and got running a high performance PC, something I'd be very worried about doing. He upgraded the cooling, both for the CPU and the video card. So they're learning about things important to them. No need to change out points and plugs every 6 months, so we shouldn't expect them to learn it.
The posts to the observation of declining mechanical ability reads much the same as many discussions carried out at the Univ. Vermont where I taught for 30 years... there is no doubt that declining abilities to reason, think and lack of practical skills has occurred over the years. I witnessed this in the ability of my students to perform well on the "same" exams year after year. I gave out far fewer A's in the late 90's than I did in the early 80's. The idea that we must all meet at the lowest common denominator is going to be the down fall of our intellectual future. IMHO!
As some may know by reading my previous posts from months back I started my "formal" college education this semester at age 53.
The young students do not involve themselves with the subject matter,or the Professor,they show no enthusiasim,interest in the work,sleep in class,show up late total loser's
The classes are "dumbed down",classes with no tests,just quizs,no mid term's no finals,just show up and you will pass
I am taking a full online Algebra 1 class, we are required to post questions,examples,discuss our work. I am the only student that has made a post in 7 days. In class pass percentage is below 50 percent,online pass percentage is worse.
I suspect that this most interesting of discussions will not reach any consensus. And that is OK too. But there clearly are forces at work which are driving the ability of students to think logically and systematically to lower levels of proficiency. I am of the opinion that in order for us to make basic progress in learning and knowledge and its applications in a theoretical and practical manner we must not look at the extremes of the bell shaped curve. In order for us to make basic progress we must be able to show that we are moving the entire curve upward. The average must be improving along with the upper and lower segments. So to see over a long period if progress is being made look at where the average person is. I am afraid the the average person in not doing better than what existed 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Sure the superstars might be brighter but the curve in its entirety is not moving upward and that is of great concern. I believe that many if not most cashiers in markets today would be hard pressed to properly make change unless the machine did not tell them exactly what the correct change is. This is a symptom of a massive failure in our basic educational systems.
The young students do not involve themselves with the subject matter,or the Professor,they show no enthusiasim,interest in the work,sleep in class,show up late total loser's
That's true for a a lot of small community colleges. But it's not for ALL colleges...especially the larger private ones. I guarantee you that's not the case at schools like MIT/Harvard/Yale. Even at BU where I received my MS and taught undergraduate school at. Now it may be the case for the FLUFF classes. But surely NOT the NORM for the classes people are majoring in.
09/25/2008 11:02:45 AM
