<p>I strongly support the talking-everything-to-death method of child rearing. We also did this.</p>
<p>“I strongly support the talking-everything-to-death method of child rearing. We also did this.”</p>
<p>Well, my H ACCUSES me of using this method…glad to hear I’m not the only one… 
</p>
<p>I’m seeing a trend here…</p>
<p>@am9799, while I think you make a good point about video or computer projects, video stuffed moles would not meet the project requirements. Neither would a video version of a Rube Goldberg device. It had to be an actual, physical, tangible device. History projects included “make an artifact,” with the explicit directions that videos and photos were not permissible.</p>
<p>I agree with those who have said that there is a difference between tedious and time-wasting. People do need to develop the patience to deal with the tedious components of work. This is often easier to develop when the work itself matters to a person. I have no patience with simple time-wasting.</p>
<p>I think that the assigned work itself ought to be worthwhile. Certainly, when I am developing assignments at the university level, I make sure that everything has a point.</p>
<p>I have never heard of mole day before and while activities like this may be fun for elementary school students, I think it’s silly to think that mole day is going to inspire a high school student to take interest in chemistry. I also think it’s flat-out wrong to grade chemistry students on the amount of time they are willing to invest in sewing dolls or cooking treats. We do have pi day, but no one is being required to invest time into it and no one is graded on it. And I don’t think pi day makes kids love math either. What they love is eating pie.</p>
<p>Instead of assigning a project that aims to interest students in chemistry, how about the teacher explaining why the subject is actually interesting and giving some concrete examples of how chemistry is used in interesting ways. I think a teacher’s genuine enthusiasm goes a long way in inspiring students. </p>
<p>Having written that, I have to confess one of my children did not like chemistry and never took more than the minimum required for HS graduation. His goal was to get through as quickly as possible with the highest grade possible and then forget about it until the end of time. OTOH the mole project requirement would probably have inspired him to quit school that week, which was always an option open to him.</p>
<p>I can kind of see the mole project as an extra credit assignment, but it still seems like an absolute waste of time to me. Obviously I have a project bias. And I’m concerned a bunch of type A students will feel the need to do the extra credit so they can have 150 out of a possible 100 points at end of term.</p>
<p>There also seems to me something slightly sinister about projects requiring crafting skills. If you could convince me these skills were useful or necessary for various academic pursuits - okay, maybe. Bench work? Archaeological digs? However, even then I think there are more time effective ways to acquire them.</p>
<p>ETA: </p>
<p>Perhaps like actually doing bench work or an archaeological dig. : )
Which you may not have time for if you have to do the mole projects…
which brings me back to QM’s question about how admissions committees judge students</p>
<p>I agree some students are definitely disadvantaged in this regard.</p>
<p>The link that Hunt provided shows a school that is not even celebrating Mole Day on the actual Mole Day (10/23). I could see some marginal value in something that caused every student to remember 10^23 (even though Avogadro’s number is technically of the order of 10^24, if you are only going by order of magnitude), but I am extremely hard pressed to think of any other chemical concept that is communicated by dressing a mole as a pop culture icon. If the celebration occurs on 10/19 or 10/20, then it seems to me that even the marginal value of celebrating 10^23 is lost.</p>
<p>Furthermore, if you take a look at the rubric, it seems to me that a fine mole could score 80% (a C in my day, maybe a bottom-of-the-barrel B- now). Poor projects are those that are “not overly creative or original.” (Perhaps they are “merely creative or original.”) This means that only a totally over-the-top mole will do. And that’s time consuming! The students’ opinions seem to go into the mole rating. Now, I have to acknowledge that this particular mole requirement could be met with a video. On the other hand, students also had to bring in a mole-related snack. Videos are no good for that. </p>
<p>Then, a student at the school in Hunt’s link can also participate in a mole breakfast (at a cost of $5 to $7). In some families, this would mean spending the entire day’s allocation for food for one person on breakfast, to gain extra credit, to compensate for the fact that the family doesn’t own a sewing machine, so the mole didn’t turn out that well. And the breakfast is at Chick-Mole-a–which some people may possibly be boycotting.</p>
<p>Is this generating enthusiasm for chemistry, or for avoiding chemistry? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>D was very disappointed when she realized that it 3/16 and there was no pie to be had in our house. That was a tradition she was able to get some passion behind. Moles…not so sure about that one.</p>
<p>I think it also sends the message that doing silly things that have nothing to do with chemistry really is “fun” and chemistry itself is not “fun” or else we wouldn’t need to bend over backwards to make it “fun”. </p>
<p>Yes, the type A students will plunge into this even though they don’t need the points, and the kids who do need the points would be much better off studying. Or how about a relevant extra credit project, such as making a project on something in the history or application of chemistry? Not as “fun”, but actually educational.</p>
<p>*Is this generating enthusiasm for chemistry, or for avoiding chemistry? *</p>
<p>It is definitely not very creative teaching. It is usually wasting precious class time and definitely wasting much more precious out of class time. Even in cultures where there is an interest in keeping young people too busy to get into trouble, there are more constructive ways to overfill their after school hours. imho</p>
<p>The family that can’t afford to make a fancy mole also can’t afford a chemistry tutor. That’s how it goes.</p>
<p>Look, I can see how some kids might be overwhelmed with stupid projects. But it seems pretty clear that “Mole Day” is intended to be a fun thing that might spark some interest in the topic. What’s the big deal?</p>
<p>I have seen moles that belonged in the Victoria and Albert Museum. I can’t say more in the interests of anonymity.</p>
<p>Thirty five years ago I watched a bunch of teachers try to inspire gifted students to enjoy the Odyssey by having them weave garlands and make togas. The students came to tell me they really just wanted to be allowed to read and discuss the text. </p>
<p>I think the whole project culture as it goes on in our schools is really misguided and frequently damaging to intellectual development. </p>
<p>I get pretty worked up about projects lol</p>
<p>The main message that I hope that lookingforward will take from this: Some of the students that she derides as sticking to the high school, and not getting “out there” to “prove it out” are staying at home sewing moles in October, and doing all of the other projects–of which the moles are simply representative.</p>
<p>If a school district can provide a textbook, or if a student has internet access, most students can learn chemistry perfectly well without a tutor. And at the end of the effort, the student has learned some chemistry! If the student really needs a tutor, some schools provide tutoring free of charge for students who cannot afford it. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if the student has spent the time constructing a very creative and original mole, at the end of the effort, the student has a stuffed-mole-qua-object. What to do with the mole? Well, if it is a bit short of museum quality, perhaps I could advert to a thread in the Parent Cafe, the “Bag a Week Club,” for those who are tossing out or donating a bag of items per week.</p>
<p>I would also like to take this opportunity to wish many blessings to the high-school Latin teacher of QMP’s who did not have extra credit assignments, because he could not understand how making a macaroni map of Italy helped students learn Latin.</p>
<p>I just wonder how common that is, QM, or if your kids are particularly unfortunate. I can’t remember every having a busywork project, except one to make a kite in a geometry class, in which we were indeed graded on kite-building skills. That was also my only non-honors class in high school (aside from courses in which honors sections weren’t available). </p>
<p>Are there really a lot of schools where one’s grade is contingent on totally unrelated abilities, like doing an art project for chem class? If so, that’s just awful. </p>
<p>Um, yes, that type of project is pretty common around here. As I mentioned, the make-a-mole project got moved into AP Chemistry a year or two after QMP skirted around it by testing out of Honors Chem and directly into the AP class. On the plus side, I did learn how to use an electric drill while QMP was in 2nd grade.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t remember having busywork projects in K-12 myself. </p>
<p>However, there has been an increasing trend towards such projects in K-12 judging by complaints I’ve heard from neighbors with schoolchildren over the last decade and other threads on this forum. </p>
<p>Some parents and activist groups have cited this trend as proof K-12 schooling has become too focused on the ornamental arts & crafts projects over actual academic skills. </p>
<p>I can see both sides to the project debate.</p>
<p>Actually, what alarms me when I look at D’s homework are the busy-work “packets” that seem to be ubiquitous in AP social science courses at her school. Instead of being asked to read, analyze, synthesize, and write, they’re filling in the blanks and being asked to parrot back word-for-word what the text book says. It’s one of the reasons I’m advising her to think long and hard before she uses high school AP classes as a basis for opting out of critical foundation courses when she goes to college. </p>
<p>I remember my son in tears about a project to make a pop-up card illustrating Charlotte’s Web. I was completely unable to get him on board. Thankfully when I went in to talk to the teacher, she was appalled that she had caused such misery in our household!</p>
<p>I can’t think of any projects as stupid as the mole project at the high school level. The closest was the Latin project that involved making an animated video. My son did the programming for it. I don’t think they learned any Latin, but the three kids involved had fun working together and probably learned a little bit about putting together a movie. There are worse results.</p>
<p>I want to chime in.</p>
<p>apprencticeprof: yes. There are a lot of schools like this. The disconnect here is that so many don’t seem to realize it.</p>
<p>I have had to get up and leave the room several times to keep from listing all the time wasting and mind draining projects at the local high school. Or cite examples of project assignment sheets with rules that were absolutely physically impossible to carry out. Sometimes this happened when a project assignment was photocopied out of some sort of book without perhaps anyone reading the instructions to see if they made sense for the class where the project was being assigned. oops. The first time I questioned this sort of instruction sheet, I was told by the teacher that “we should be able to figure something out” I won’t share what I did then. : ( : (</p>
<p>In this type of situation, I am a party pooper.</p>