The issue of training.
Normal To enter, you must be a preparatory class, which means that the ENS does not pass through the first two years of college. That said, this does not mean that the ENS does not go through college at all : School does not award diplomas, which means that we must at least be enrolled in a university (for scientists) and also to monitor the progress (for literature). It is therefore wrong to say that we are totally alien to the university: it is in his background that we make our two-year Master (+ sometimes the last license year) and our thesis that there is Professor who heads our research, we work here after school. We are part of the university, the difference with other students is that we also follow other courses elsewhere, which, in the third year degree, results in an insane schedule, even by removing the current "double".
Here we are confronted with different levels with students who have done that in college . This is not true in all subjects, but to give you an idea, L3 classics, I found myself with people who were still in the BA-BA in Greek, or who were totally unable to translate a basic text in this language - as they were trying to finish their license: it was therefore at least the third year they were Greek. You will understand why I deserted to follow the course equivalent in Ulm: I honestly feel that wasting my time, or even worse, losing my level (which was not quite true, because the versions were when even corrected fairly "dry").
As a first very basic, ie, leaving for the moment, ENS outside the table, this raises the question of the level required for college from one year to another, arriving third-year classics without knowing even the most elementary rules of Greek grammar seems totally unacceptable, both for the university and said die, more importantly, for students, which was allowed to go straight into the wall honking.
"Yes, but you might say, given the few students in classics, if they are being fired because they did not level it will really end up with three peeled and shaved ! The problem of classical literature is another matter, he would undoubtedly good deal here too long: all I will say for now is that it seems to me that allowing a student who has very clearly not continue through the level third year is totally unacceptable.
So two things: either one considers that the problem is him and he says he is not in its interest to continue in this way (after all, the advantage of college is that there are many opportunities for diversion), or we consider that the problem is we are reviewing our requirements and meet our students and the education we deliver them (you saw? think I already as teacher is wonderful).
However, even in sectors where the level of requirement is really ok, the ENS and former préparationnaires (because, compared to students who have made the college, ex-préparationnaires must also come into account - it's not just the ENS, in life!) proved best and frankly what they are mostly found in the aggregation and received the best ranks among the Caps received (which does not mean that others have no chance to be as well, fortunately).
From my point of view, it is a question of method: the training received in prep school is very focused on the methodology, with exercises and frequent. They may say there is nothing more effective to integrate the rules of the essay and the text commentary (I Leaving aside the intrinsic necessity of becoming more or less a workhorse dubbed a genius for organization, makes you laugh gently when you give then a month to make a point). In college, the exercises are fewer (to give you an idea, my students need me a comment made at the end of the month in preparation, I'd already made two and the third is on the way) and the methodology clearly less hammered, judging, after the difficulties experienced by students to organize their work.
What college is less "psycho" as the preparation no problem: after all, why not? Nobody is obliged to follow the paths canonically formatted to think for yourself and do something good (it is one of the advantages of prépas provincial over prépas Paris: think different, guys!). Nevertheless, we must still be built a certain way to get there and what is often lacking in students (for reasons of convenience, I call now "students" who have studied that in college, he should not however forget that ex-préparationnaires and ENS are also of students): they are not as good in themselves, they often struggle to organize their thinking to make it go further.
can now wonder if they would be better if they knew it. In my opinion, yes: the good and even better would have the same weapons as the others, the poor are the least ill have other problems (or the same, but at least in terms of organize their thoughts, they would know how they should ideally be). You might say: "Yes, but the best are not in college, they are in prep school!". This is probably partly true, but what I know, myself, is that the freshmen that I have before me right now are just as good as Hypokhâgne and they are not prepared, meaning that the university has immense potential and affirm that only one is going bad absolutely false.
Normal To enter, you must be a preparatory class, which means that the ENS does not pass through the first two years of college. That said, this does not mean that the ENS does not go through college at all : School does not award diplomas, which means that we must at least be enrolled in a university (for scientists) and also to monitor the progress (for literature). It is therefore wrong to say that we are totally alien to the university: it is in his background that we make our two-year Master (+ sometimes the last license year) and our thesis that there is Professor who heads our research, we work here after school. We are part of the university, the difference with other students is that we also follow other courses elsewhere, which, in the third year degree, results in an insane schedule, even by removing the current "double".
Here we are confronted with different levels with students who have done that in college . This is not true in all subjects, but to give you an idea, L3 classics, I found myself with people who were still in the BA-BA in Greek, or who were totally unable to translate a basic text in this language - as they were trying to finish their license: it was therefore at least the third year they were Greek. You will understand why I deserted to follow the course equivalent in Ulm: I honestly feel that wasting my time, or even worse, losing my level (which was not quite true, because the versions were when even corrected fairly "dry").
As a first very basic, ie, leaving for the moment, ENS outside the table, this raises the question of the level required for college from one year to another, arriving third-year classics without knowing even the most elementary rules of Greek grammar seems totally unacceptable, both for the university and said die, more importantly, for students, which was allowed to go straight into the wall honking.
"Yes, but you might say, given the few students in classics, if they are being fired because they did not level it will really end up with three peeled and shaved ! The problem of classical literature is another matter, he would undoubtedly good deal here too long: all I will say for now is that it seems to me that allowing a student who has very clearly not continue through the level third year is totally unacceptable.
So two things: either one considers that the problem is him and he says he is not in its interest to continue in this way (after all, the advantage of college is that there are many opportunities for diversion), or we consider that the problem is we are reviewing our requirements and meet our students and the education we deliver them (you saw? think I already as teacher is wonderful).
However, even in sectors where the level of requirement is really ok, the ENS and former préparationnaires (because, compared to students who have made the college, ex-préparationnaires must also come into account - it's not just the ENS, in life!) proved best and frankly what they are mostly found in the aggregation and received the best ranks among the Caps received (which does not mean that others have no chance to be as well, fortunately).
From my point of view, it is a question of method: the training received in prep school is very focused on the methodology, with exercises and frequent. They may say there is nothing more effective to integrate the rules of the essay and the text commentary (I Leaving aside the intrinsic necessity of becoming more or less a workhorse dubbed a genius for organization, makes you laugh gently when you give then a month to make a point). In college, the exercises are fewer (to give you an idea, my students need me a comment made at the end of the month in preparation, I'd already made two and the third is on the way) and the methodology clearly less hammered, judging, after the difficulties experienced by students to organize their work.
What college is less "psycho" as the preparation no problem: after all, why not? Nobody is obliged to follow the paths canonically formatted to think for yourself and do something good (it is one of the advantages of prépas provincial over prépas Paris: think different, guys!). Nevertheless, we must still be built a certain way to get there and what is often lacking in students (for reasons of convenience, I call now "students" who have studied that in college, he should not however forget that ex-préparationnaires and ENS are also of students): they are not as good in themselves, they often struggle to organize their thinking to make it go further.
can now wonder if they would be better if they knew it. In my opinion, yes: the good and even better would have the same weapons as the others, the poor are the least ill have other problems (or the same, but at least in terms of organize their thoughts, they would know how they should ideally be). You might say: "Yes, but the best are not in college, they are in prep school!". This is probably partly true, but what I know, myself, is that the freshmen that I have before me right now are just as good as Hypokhâgne and they are not prepared, meaning that the university has immense potential and affirm that only one is going bad absolutely false.
Another problem: think different is good, but if you want to spend the contest or other education is mainly on your ability to conform to a mold that will judge you ( not only do something original leads necessarily a failure, but let's be clear: the aggregation, it is not at all what is expected of you). Gold this mold is education as it is issued in prep school, it is considered good or not, this raises problems for students, starting with a handicap.
It is therefore understandable that the former ENS and préparationnaires students do better than "short" since they have integrated a moment on what we know was going to try and comply. After that the ENS often prove better than the former préparationnaires (but not all the time and, above all, not necessarily: to integrate, it must be good enough everywhere, which means that if you are good in Latin, but no one in history and philosophy, you will not integrate, but if you continue to study Latin literature, there are good chances that you're as good as people who have built: so do no complex) is explained easily enough: the fact that they have already integrated means that at one point they were better than them, and then the level of the courses at the ENS remains high and the preparation is good, they enjoy other advantages. I might also add that there are people who are "facts" for the contest (there are even nutcases who can not live if they have no competition to pass) and people who are not made for that. A friend of mine was told that the aggregation was like a marriage: that it works, it takes two, it's a little idea.
It is therefore understandable that the former ENS and préparationnaires students do better than "short" since they have integrated a moment on what we know was going to try and comply. After that the ENS often prove better than the former préparationnaires (but not all the time and, above all, not necessarily: to integrate, it must be good enough everywhere, which means that if you are good in Latin, but no one in history and philosophy, you will not integrate, but if you continue to study Latin literature, there are good chances that you're as good as people who have built: so do no complex) is explained easily enough: the fact that they have already integrated means that at one point they were better than them, and then the level of the courses at the ENS remains high and the preparation is good, they enjoy other advantages. I might also add that there are people who are "facts" for the contest (there are even nutcases who can not live if they have no competition to pass) and people who are not made for that. A friend of mine was told that the aggregation was like a marriage: that it works, it takes two, it's a little idea.
Now this question of being better than others is crucial, because this is what justifies and légimitise the salary they pay us.
To be continued ...
(I'm sorry, but all this took me even longer than expected, I'm afraid I can not continue when pensions Italy, ie from next Monday .. .)
0 comments:
Post a Comment