Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop
Posted:
Dec 14, 2012 5:27 PM
|
|
On 12/14/2012 11:53 AM, Haim wrote:
> GS Chandy Posted: Dec 14, 2012 6:58 AM
>
>> I spent a good bit of time on reading that document.
>>
>> The prose is well-nigh unreadable.
> You meant to write, "the prose is well-nigh unreadable by me."
There is no limit to what you can find to be unreadable when you've set
your mind to it. I also found the Bishop and Milgram defenses to be both
readable and compelling, and the petition campaign to be defamatory at
its core. It appears to me Ms. Boaler just isn't used to being subjected
to effective criticism, preferring the 'pal review' prevalent in Ed circles.
- -Greg
>
> While I expressed some quibbles over Wayne's strategy, I had no trouble reading his article. Which brings us back to the question you have been dodging. Would the application of OPMS help you to understand Wayne's writing? My writing? Just about everybody else's writing? All of which you seem to have considerable trouble with.
>
> Haim
> No representation without taxation.
|
|
|
|
