Essay-a-Week Challenge - Week 14
"August 5th: Theory vs Practice"
There’s the hypothesis and the experiment; the proof and the calculation; the blueprint and the end result. Do you work better with theories or their applications? What do you think modern education stresses more? Do you think these methods could be improved?
Topics from, A Bookful Blockhead.
The terms 'theory' and 'practice' bring me back to a time of piano lessons and examinations. Each Royal Conservatory level above six required both a practical performance test and a written music theory exam. I had a strong tendency (there was one exception) of achieving higher scores on the theory portion, though this observation is misleading since it's much harder to get a very high mark on a performance test. Even if I was able to factor in my percentile in each respective test, I don't think I would be able to compare my ability to comprehend theories and apply them in practice, and here's why.
I see theory and practice as two separate entities, connected much like genes and their respective proteins. DNA is the cell's way of storing information, and these codes are cut, transcribed, edited, translated, and edited some more before the cell apples its genetic code as enzymes - the machines that run the cell. A theory implies its applications, but practices don't necessarily imply their theories - i.e. you can build a protein if you know its genetic code, but you can't decode a DNA sequence given a protein, even if you're given its amino acid sequence.
A cell cannot function with DNA alone, but most functions can proceed with the presence of proteins. It doesn't matter how the cell obtained the protein - whether it was synthesized, absorbed, or provided artificially - a given protein will perform its function even if the cell doesn't have the gene. Same goes for theory and practice: I can play piano if I learn musical techniques without learning any music theory, but I can't play if I only know music theory. Theory must be applied before it can produce results, as DNA is only useful if it can be transcribed and translated as protein.
Physics tells us how sounds are produced, and how our ears respond to these vibrations. Analysis of waves and their frequencies suggest which combinations of tones are pleasant to hear. Musical theory interprets physics as notes and scales, forming guidelines for writing music of a certain style and creating masterpieces of art (and arguably mathematics) with beautiful harmonies and counterpoint. If you've studied all this theory, great - you can apply it in your songwriting, but great music has been created for millennia without this knowledge. Regardless of your understanding of theory, your work will be measured by your ability to apply your skills.
Or, simply put, you can't quantify your ability to work with theory - that is an application, or practise, in itself. A theory test is really just a method of quantifying one's ability to put recall thoughts and apply them as you answer questions. One can have a great understanding of music and still bomb a written test. But while I can't really state whether I (or anyone) works better with theory or applications, I can write about their significance in our education system.
When it comes down to marks, school is a test of a student's ability to apply. English students must be able to put their thoughts into essay-form, math students solve problems, biochemists conduct experiments and write reports, and musicians practice and perform. Without a doubt, there is a strong stress on applying one's skills to the task at hand.
Compared to "the real world", however, education is by far the main source of theory. Kinematic equations, the structure of a Shakespearean play, and game theory are rarely used at work, but are commonplace at a high school. Students are told to read tomes of textbooks and learn about the histories of thought that led to today's current model of the atom and the development of the English Language. School is a place for theory, though only the application of this knowledge is measured.
While both theory and practice are important to today's students, the most important element to take away from education isn't the DNA or their related protein products - it's the ribosomes. I feel that teachers today place an added emphasis on the ability to apply theories into applications, instead of just working with each individually. It's easy just to hand out tests, and even easier to recite the textbooks, but the best teachers are those that coach you between the two steps.
I've gone on long enough and won't detail how education can be improved, but I know that the process of application is an important component, if not the most vital part, of learning. With the internet, finding a good explanation of theory is clicks away, from a length Wikipedia article to a 10 minute lecture from the Khan Academy. When it comes to real world application skills, say the proper incision technique or figuring out that piece of office software, people will pick it up at the workplace/training in days - you don't need 12+ years to teach that to students.
Education solely based on rote memorization is bound to leave students that fail to leave a mark in the world, while those who only learn techniques will fail when the world changes around them. With all this time spent at school (by the time most people finish a Bachelor's Degree, they are more than 25% through their life), educators should stress the process of turning theory into practice. With the ribosome's components in place, you'll be able to translate any protein from any strand of DNA, no matter how foreign.
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for years,
until there are no more fish.
Show a man how to develop hunting tools,
and he'll feed a civilization.
I see theory and practice as two separate entities, connected much like genes and their respective proteins. DNA is the cell's way of storing information, and these codes are cut, transcribed, edited, translated, and edited some more before the cell apples its genetic code as enzymes - the machines that run the cell. A theory implies its applications, but practices don't necessarily imply their theories - i.e. you can build a protein if you know its genetic code, but you can't decode a DNA sequence given a protein, even if you're given its amino acid sequence.
A cell cannot function with DNA alone, but most functions can proceed with the presence of proteins. It doesn't matter how the cell obtained the protein - whether it was synthesized, absorbed, or provided artificially - a given protein will perform its function even if the cell doesn't have the gene. Same goes for theory and practice: I can play piano if I learn musical techniques without learning any music theory, but I can't play if I only know music theory. Theory must be applied before it can produce results, as DNA is only useful if it can be transcribed and translated as protein.
Physics tells us how sounds are produced, and how our ears respond to these vibrations. Analysis of waves and their frequencies suggest which combinations of tones are pleasant to hear. Musical theory interprets physics as notes and scales, forming guidelines for writing music of a certain style and creating masterpieces of art (and arguably mathematics) with beautiful harmonies and counterpoint. If you've studied all this theory, great - you can apply it in your songwriting, but great music has been created for millennia without this knowledge. Regardless of your understanding of theory, your work will be measured by your ability to apply your skills.
Speaking of mathematical art masterpieces, here's Bach's Crab Canon.
Or, simply put, you can't quantify your ability to work with theory - that is an application, or practise, in itself. A theory test is really just a method of quantifying one's ability to put recall thoughts and apply them as you answer questions. One can have a great understanding of music and still bomb a written test. But while I can't really state whether I (or anyone) works better with theory or applications, I can write about their significance in our education system.
When it comes down to marks, school is a test of a student's ability to apply. English students must be able to put their thoughts into essay-form, math students solve problems, biochemists conduct experiments and write reports, and musicians practice and perform. Without a doubt, there is a strong stress on applying one's skills to the task at hand.
Compared to "the real world", however, education is by far the main source of theory. Kinematic equations, the structure of a Shakespearean play, and game theory are rarely used at work, but are commonplace at a high school. Students are told to read tomes of textbooks and learn about the histories of thought that led to today's current model of the atom and the development of the English Language. School is a place for theory, though only the application of this knowledge is measured.
 |
| A Translation Party, or Translation Fiesta? |
I've gone on long enough and won't detail how education can be improved, but I know that the process of application is an important component, if not the most vital part, of learning. With the internet, finding a good explanation of theory is clicks away, from a length Wikipedia article to a 10 minute lecture from the Khan Academy. When it comes to real world application skills, say the proper incision technique or figuring out that piece of office software, people will pick it up at the workplace/training in days - you don't need 12+ years to teach that to students.
Education solely based on rote memorization is bound to leave students that fail to leave a mark in the world, while those who only learn techniques will fail when the world changes around them. With all this time spent at school (by the time most people finish a Bachelor's Degree, they are more than 25% through their life), educators should stress the process of turning theory into practice. With the ribosome's components in place, you'll be able to translate any protein from any strand of DNA, no matter how foreign.
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for years,
until there are no more fish.
Show a man how to develop hunting tools,
and he'll feed a civilization.
