74

Apologies if I am asking something that is well known, but I am not a native English speaker, and I could not find an answer so far.

In my native language, there exists a (derogatory) word for pupils, who strive to get high grades by literally memorizing tons of facts, instead of understanding and learning. The main characteristic of such people is that at first (in first few years of school) they get excellent grades, as the quantity of material is not beyond ability to memorize (but still they do not understand most of it). As they progress through the school, this gets more and more difficult, and becomes impossible in high school or at the university at the latest, causing such people to spend many hours trying to memorize impossible amounts of data, only to be outdone by their peers who can understand the subject.

The word is derogatory in a sense that such pupils are usually hated by their peers since they are teachers' pets (at first), increasing the bar for others, who do understand the subjects, but are not prepared to invest hours and hours of their time to memorize useless facts. The downfall of such pupil is often welcomed by peers.

So, what is the word for such pupil? "nerd" and "geek" are not appropriate, since they are not derogatory in the desired sense -- nerds and geeks display above-average understanding of subjects, even if it is narrowly focused.

Example "John is such XXXXXX, he does not understand a word of what teacher is saying, he just repeats phrases from textbook and gets good grades. Shame!"

Word XXXX is not vulgar or obscene, but it is derogatory. So, I am searching for an English expression describing such person/pupil. Thanks.

Edit: I don't think that is a duplicate, since I explained the rationale in more detail. I am searching for word with negative connotation, related to learning. The person may not be stupid or lazy, perhaps they don't know better than rote learning.

So far the best candidates are: parrot (to parrot) and regurgitator (to regurgitate). Both come very close to what I had in mind.

xmp125a
  • 808
  • 40
    Perhaps a *parrot*? Parrots also learn by rote (a word which may also be helpful or applicable). – Dan Bron Mar 14 '16 at 22:48
  • 2
    What @DanBron said. And yes, calling someone a parrot in the context is derogatory. As is the verb: to parrot, parroting, etc. – Drew Mar 14 '16 at 23:01
  • Bloom's taxonomy is an attempt to classify and rank different levels of cognitive ability / processing. And yes, memorising of facts is level 1. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 14 '16 at 23:04
  • 5
    Out of curiosity, what's the original word and what language is it from? I'd love to coopt it into English. – Adam Martin Mar 14 '16 at 23:12
  • 8
    Orignial language is Slovenian, and the word is "piflar" (a noun, denoting a person), or "piflanje", activity. – xmp125a Mar 15 '16 at 02:25
  • Possible duplicate of Is there a specific word or name that refers to someone who studies a lot but is not intelligent – Brian Hooper Mar 15 '16 at 09:38
  • @BrianHooper I'm finding it hard to decide whether that's a true duplicate; in this case, OP is asking about someone who memorises the material rather than studies a lot, and that doesn't necessarily follow that they're not intelligent. It's possible to have a rote learner who is so because of laziness but is still perfectly capable of learning the subject if they want to. – John Clifford Mar 15 '16 at 10:19
  • In some classrooms it would be "prize pupil". – Hot Licks Mar 15 '16 at 12:43
  • 2
    There is a perfect word in one of my mothertongues for this, but it's not English... – shardulc Mar 15 '16 at 12:50
  • 7
    Very sadly, in much of the U.S., they would call that person an "honor student." – cobaltduck Mar 15 '16 at 13:17
  • 3
    In India, such an act is called "mugging up" and an Indianism for that person is "mugger"! – BiscuitBoy Mar 15 '16 at 13:27
  • 2
    I think Russians might call this a зубрила. – ghostarbeiter Mar 15 '16 at 14:11
  • 1
    In the sane vein as parrot, you could use *monkey, a reference to the expression [monkey see, monkey do*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_see,_monkey_do). – jxh Mar 15 '16 at 18:37
  • 1
    I happen to think parrots are very cute so probably that whole piece of communication is flying over my head. – mathreadler Mar 16 '16 at 09:36
  • 3
    @mathreadler The point is that parrots can "speak", but they are only repeating ("parroting") sounds that they have heard before. They do not understand the meaning of the words, though they may sometimes be able to make situational associations. Chenmunka's answer below explains it, also. – Jed Schaaf Mar 16 '16 at 20:22
  • I meant it as a joke flying over the head could be what the parrot would do. I understand, but I still find them cute. In general I find it to be a waste of energy and health to be angry at all the stupidity in the world. – mathreadler Mar 16 '16 at 20:55
  • 3
    It's purely personal: I tend to call such people MSCPs (Microsoft Certified Professionals) because they know how to achieve a given result without understanding why it works or what the consequences are. – Nicole Mar 17 '16 at 18:04
  • Lacking a common noun, universities evolve their own local jargon to cover this. Of course this is no help to OP, since regional slang from particular universities would not be understood by speakers of English. – wbeaty Mar 18 '16 at 01:18
  • @cobaltduck Not just in the U.S. I'm afraid, most school systems I've come across seem to focus on proving what the student knows rather than what the student understands. – Cronax Mar 18 '16 at 08:02
  • 1
    Rote learning puts you ahead of the curve in your final years of school, not behind. The concepts involved in the subject become progressively more complex but the time allotted to learn them remains unchanged. – Asad Saeeduddin Mar 18 '16 at 10:18
  • There is no word in English that exactly names a person like this. There are terms for learning in this manner ('regurgitate') and you can make a noun out of it but people don't really use it pejoratively (or at all) as you wish. You could but people just don't. At least in the US, the grade school teaching philosophy is not centered on facts and dates. There are other derogatory terms for students who try hard on other ways (swot (chiefly Br), nerd, teacher's pet, grade-grubber), but not for regurgitation. – Mitch Mar 18 '16 at 13:37
  • @Mitch: I have never heard regurgitation used in a positive light. At best neutral. Example: Cogitate, don't regurgitate. – jxh Mar 18 '16 at 17:19
  • @jxh I was not saying that regurgitation is positive, but that it is not a term for a student (It is the abstract noun for the activity). 'regurgitator' would be technically correct, but it is just not used. – Mitch Mar 18 '16 at 17:36
  • Part of the problem is lazy testing. Multiple choice is easy to grade but leads to memorize can get a good grade. – paparazzo Mar 19 '16 at 10:13
  • In the example given, I thought "John is such a poser", but that's not strictly academic, and generally applies to anyone who is faking it. –  Mar 19 '16 at 14:53
  • 1
    At least at my school, it's called "pump and dump learning," e.g. "He just pumps and dumps for the quizzes, don't go to him for help." – Nathan Ringo Mar 19 '16 at 21:34
  • Back in my days at school, someone like that would have been called a girl. Yes, that’s sexist, but for most boys (and many girls) it’s also derogatory. – Crissov Mar 20 '16 at 14:28
  • Not quite what youre after, but theres Egghead. That`s someone who knows a lot but is out pf touch with the average person. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egghead – JohnLBevan Mar 20 '16 at 19:57
  • I would call them a robot. – Chloe Mar 20 '16 at 20:26
  • @Asad Saeeduddin Rote learning inevitably puts you behind sooner or later. Depends on how far one pursues their education. I'd say that for most pupils, primary school is the furthest they can go, without disproportional amount of effort. – xmp125a Mar 21 '16 at 05:47
  • @jpers: That would be Rote learning *alone* puts you behind sooner or later. Most (if not all) disciplines cannot be completely mastered without at least some amount of memorization. – jxh Mar 21 '16 at 23:36
  • @jpers I'm in an engineering discipline, and the broad range of topics I'm expected to gain a shallow understanding of necessitates rote learning. There is simply not enough time to go through the textbook for every subject and understand the mathematical model and its derivation, especially with the quantity of work you are expected to hand in. For most of the topics I care about I will go through the textbook for a deeper understanding once the course is over, but doing this for every subject simultaneously is simply not possible. Focused rote learning is necessary. – Asad Saeeduddin Mar 22 '16 at 21:44
  • @AsadSeeduddin Then the curriculum your school follows is a very bad one. Sadly, there are many schools left that encourage this, and perhaps quite a few teachers. Don't know where you go to school or university, but south america and parts of asia are really bad in this respect. – xmp125a Mar 23 '16 at 16:47
  • @jxh agree. The term I was asking for refers to a pupil that tries to solve everything by rote learning. – xmp125a Mar 23 '16 at 16:49
  • @jpers I go to school in Canada. The curriculum everywhere has to be this bad, unless you expect an engineering degree to last eight to ten years. Employers simply expect someone coming out of an engineering program to have a shallow understanding of a broad array of topics; there's no way around it. Academically, this makes for an extremely poor environment, but it is useful for employers so that is how it is structured. – Asad Saeeduddin Apr 14 '16 at 19:48

11 Answers11

90

I believe you are wanting to use the term regurgitate (with the noun form regurgitator):

: to repeat (something, such as a fact, idea, etc.) without understanding it
Merriam-Webster

The fact the word also relates to vomit gives it a negative connotation.

John is just a regurgitator, ...

John is simply regurgitating, ...

Community
  • 1
jxh
  • 10,463
  • What would be then the noun? "regurgitator"? Although in the verb form it could be useful as well, thanks. – xmp125a Mar 14 '16 at 22:59
  • 10
    @jxh I didn't downvote you, but I imagine that it's because what's wanted is a noun, and regurgitator doesn't seem to be a word people use of these kinds of students? – Dan Bron Mar 14 '16 at 23:37
  • 1
    Actually I did not vote down, it still the best answer so far. Regurgitator and a parrot are currently my favorites. – xmp125a Mar 15 '16 at 02:27
  • 11
    I don't think people tend to use the term regurgitator for such students, but they do tend to describe some teaching and testing policies as only testing a student's ability to regurgitate facts. This is usually aimed at the education system, though, not the students. – Joshua Taylor Mar 15 '16 at 16:32
  • 1
    +1 I have actually heard this term, as a noun, to describe such people in North American classrooms. – Lan Mar 17 '16 at 16:12
  • 1
    @Lan: I make no claim that regurgitator is in common use, but there is precedence of it being used, and its meaning is crystal clear and is obviously derogatory when applied to a student. – jxh Mar 21 '16 at 08:12
64

There is the expression that someone is learning parrot-fashion.

Simply repeating received phrases like a trained parrot.

This is often seen as a verb, the pupil simply parrots the received lesson.

Chenmunka
  • 13,046
  • 7
    I think constructions involving "parrot" best fit the OP's intent. I suspect there isn't a simple noun equivalent of "piflar", sadly. – Pete Verdon Mar 15 '16 at 13:55
20

John learns robotically, he does not understand a word of what teacher is saying, he just repeats phrases from textbook and gets good grades. Shame!"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/robot#robot__2

robot

1.2 A person who behaves in a mechanical or unemotional manner: public servants are not expected to be mindless robots

k1eran
  • 22,565
  • 3
    As a software developer having developed robots, I feel the urge to slap the person who came up with this phrase. – Stephan Bijzitter Mar 18 '16 at 14:17
  • @StephanBijzitter I agree completely... The majority of the population seems to think that all robots are stupid – undo Mar 19 '16 at 17:10
  • 3
    Robots ARE stupid. They don't actually understand things. Even with a giant neural network that beats humans in Go, they don't understand what the stones are, that you could throw them, that you could choke on one, that they sink in water. The neural network is still deterministic, even if a human can't follow all the traces of inputs & outputs in their lifetime. – Chloe Mar 20 '16 at 20:29
  • 1
    @Chloe, all the examples about the stone you gave are equally applicable to humans. How do you know you can throw a stone? You tried and observed the result, didn't you? It's naive to say robots have no understanding, for all we know we might be the ones that do not understand their level of understanding. Then again, it may even depend on your definition of understanding. Either way, that's probably a subject for multiple other SE domains. – Stephan Bijzitter Mar 20 '16 at 23:13
  • @StephanBijzitter Actually, there is strong resemblance between rota learning and the "learning" of modern machine learning algorithms (who need many many samples and "generalize" only if they see all of the posibilities during the learning). I think they should be called "machine regurgitating algorithms". This was also one of (hidden) motivations behind my post - I wanted to get a word that would describe such "learning". – xmp125a Mar 21 '16 at 05:51
  • @jpers: really? I would think of older knowledge-base/expert-system AI models as more like rote learning — a fixed collection of facts, with the agent contributing nothing essentially new that it wasn’t taught. Modern machine learning seems to me like the opposite end of human learning styles: students who learn techniques by practicing them for a long time, rather than being taught anything specific about the theory behind them. – PLL Mar 21 '16 at 10:49
  • @PLL Even modern (e.g. deep learning) algorithms cannot generalize new concepts well from only a few samples, which is undoubtedly something people are very good at -- and also a difference between regurgitating/parroting pupil and the one who understands the subject -- the ability to make a "good model" from small sample set that teacher (in the classroom) provides. – xmp125a Mar 21 '16 at 18:55
  • 1
    @PLL This is pure coincidence, but we got excellent example of "robotic learning" with infamous Tay Twitter robot by Microsoft: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/24/microsofts-teen-girl-ai-turns-into-a-hitler-loving-sex-robot-wit/ – xmp125a Mar 25 '16 at 06:26
13

A slightly old-fashioned word in informal British English is a swot. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/swot

The British English verb to describe the process of "learning lots of facts but without understanding the subject" is cramming, but I don't think there is a noun meaning "a student who crams". The noun crammer means a school or a teacher that helps students to pass exams by cramming (usually referring to a private school or a tutor which charges high fees) - it doesn't refer to the students at such a school.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cram (meaning #2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/crammer

alephzero
  • 4,104
  • 1
    Supposedly there is a similar word in US English: "a grind" (definition 19). But I'm unfamiliar with it. – ghostarbeiter Mar 15 '16 at 14:09
  • 14
    "Cramming" in Canadian (North American?) English just means intense studying. Their are some implications of it being last minute, but you could cram for a math test where you are legitimately learning. – Sled Mar 15 '16 at 14:31
  • 2
    As far I understand, cramming is perfectly legitimate and does not necessarily involve rote learning. Grind would be perhaps closer, but "overly diligent" does not imply that the person is doing it in a wrong (and dead-end) fashion. – xmp125a Mar 15 '16 at 15:11
  • 3
    Indeed. "Cramming" is any form of preparation for an exam, especially last-minute, but without regard to the particular technique, in British English as much as elsewhere. "Swot" also lacks the required connotation, as it is (was?) often used with a meaning similar to the more modern "geek" or "nerd" -- i.e. somebody who prefers learning to other activities, often for the sake of the process. – Jules Mar 15 '16 at 20:58
  • @ArtB: As a Canadian, I'm aware of "cramming" (studying just before a test/exam), but mostly thought of it as a British word. Most people just say "study session", even if "cram session" would fit. – Peter Cordes Mar 16 '16 at 14:48
  • "Swot" (Noun) means somebody who studies hard and likes school, whereas "to swot" is the process of studying a subject intensely. It is used in a derogatory sense by those who are jealous of their peer who does well at school, sure, but it has no relationship to the idea that the OP is asking, which is blatant from the citation you provided. As bad as Oxford Dictionaries is, even it manages to convey how silly this answer is. – Benjamin R Mar 21 '16 at 04:22
6

A related term that may be useful is "academic bulimia". A style of learning where a person 'consumes' what they need to learn and then 'purge' of it afterwards. However, it describes the behaviour and not the person unlike what you may be asking for.

ghostarbeiter
  • 806
Sled
  • 447
  • 3
  • 10
  • 4
    Just because Urban Dictionary has an entry for it doesn't mean it's actually being used. The only places I see that mentioned are UD itself or references talking about the UD entry or definition. – Brandin Mar 16 '16 at 08:28
  • 6
    I've heard it used for years, and only checked to see if it was on Urban Dictionary to make sure it wasn't a purely local thing. – Sled Mar 16 '16 at 14:22
  • A less disgusting version of this practice is "the sponge-faucet method." You turn the faucet on and the sponge fills up with water. You wring the sponge and the water pours out. "That is what we call the final exam," as my mentor would say about the method. – Matthew Leingang Mar 18 '16 at 16:09
  • 1
    The metaphor is actively used in other languages as well, e.g. German Bulimielernen ‘bulimic learning’. A related term is binge learning. – Crissov Mar 20 '16 at 14:23
2

Another term that's in wide enough use to be recognized by a fairly significant number of people is packer.

The basic definition of a packer is much as you've noted: people who learn by memorizing a large number of facts.

The dual of packer is "mapper". Mappers learn more by creating and maintaining more of a logical framework. Rather than being built around specific facts, the emphasis is much more on understanding of general ideas.

I think it's fair to say that (when used in this fashion) "packer" is derogatory to at least some degree (i.e., carries at least a mildly negative connotation).

Jerry Coffin
  • 429
1

I've heard it as someone that is full of "book learning" or is a "book learner". They can recite the book back at you, but have no idea how to apply it.

Brian Knoblauch
  • 147
1

You are precisely describing a glib student.

The phrase may not be very commonly used, however. I'm not sure. I worked at a couple different schools and the staff and students would all understand you perfectly if you used "glib" to mean exactly what you describe in your post, but I haven't seen it in dictionaries with a perfectly matching definition.

If someone doesn't get it when you say "glib student", you could clarify by saying, "You know, he's just a parrot."

The probable source of this usage of the term, with an excerpt:

We now have “the quick student who somehow never applies what he learns,” also called a glib student.

The specific phenomenon then is that a student can study some words and give them back and yet be no participant to the action. The student gets A+ on exams but can’t apply the data.

Community
  • 1
Wildcard
  • 539
  • 1
  • 4
  • 14
  • Glib? Why glib? That doesn't fit here. – dangph Mar 18 '16 at 04:56
  • @dangph, see caveats listed already. I can only respond that I've definitely encountered it used that way, not once but scores of times from different people. A Google search reveals a possible source for the usage; I will update my answer. – Wildcard Mar 18 '16 at 05:45
-1

Depending on context, you might call such a person sophomoric.

This often carries with it connotations of immaturity or lack of wisdom, but it can also be used to describe someone who has theoretical knowledge, but lacks practical experience with applying that knowledge.

K.Tibbs
  • 1
-1

You could try a broken record.

This is more often used in cases of repeating only one thing over and over, but depending on the specific context, it might work here.

Jim is such a broken record. He only repeats what the book says over and over again and never contributes anything of value.

Adam Hayes
  • 1,340
  • 4
    I don't think this works at all. If a record was broken, it couldn't repeat the right fact. Technically someone could still drop the needle in the right place, and get the right fact until the record hit a scratch that made it loop. But being broken has nothing to do with being able to recall the right fact. I think I see how you're trying to stretch the analogy, but IMO it just doesn't work. – Peter Cordes Mar 16 '16 at 14:51
  • Well... I would contend that education in general is like a broken record. Whenever someone comes up with a new idea, it is almost always feared to the point of persecution and shot down (sometimes violently) by society, who would prefer to continue repeating the same old story. Galileo was BURNED for stating the fact that the Earth is round... but that's probably far outside the scope of this question. – Adam Hayes Mar 16 '16 at 15:24
  • 1
    Most of that is true (except that Galileo wasn't burned at the stake. Maybe you're thinking of one of his supporters, Giordano Bruno, mentioned in Galileo's wikipedia article). But that doesn't make this a good answer to describe a single person who's memorizing instead of learning. – Peter Cordes Mar 16 '16 at 15:38
  • The term "broken record" is misused in this answer. A literal broken record repeats the same thing over and over. It does this because a damaged groove throws the playback needle back to a prior point, usual the previous groove. A person is compared to a broken record when he repeats something to the annoyance of others such as when a child repeatedly asks "Are we there yet?" So Jim in this example is not a broken record, but he could be compared to a (correctly operating) tape recorder. – David42 Mar 18 '16 at 15:55
-4

I'm not sure if it is in common use but direct translation from Polish for such a person could be a pecker (or woodpecker), plus pecker has quite few derogatory meanings on its own in English.

Jonathan Leffler
  • 6,751
Miko
  • 1
  • 6
    Hi Miko, welcome to EL&U! Your answer as-is isn't bad, but it would be a lot better if you were to include links or references to support why "pecker" or "woodpecker" is a correct answer to this question. The part about packer having derogatory meanings in English, while interesting, isn't helpful in the context of the question asked. – John Clifford Mar 15 '16 at 13:12
  • It's purely Polish thing, because mindless learning is called 'kucie' - same word as woodpecker' activity. It would work only if learning by heart was called 'pecking' in English, which is not. – Agent_L Mar 17 '16 at 13:11