It's that merry season again! School begins for me on the twenty-sixth of August, so I'm again beginning to appreciate how abysmally dysfunctional America's system of so-called "education" actually is.
Actually, "begins" is not a good word. For the first three days, we do useless things. Like go bowling, and ice skating, and have dinner together. It's supposed to be a "bonding" experience. Screw that. I don't go to school to bond. I go to school to learn. I've had all summer to bond with my friends. (For the record, ice skating in Florida is not our idea of fun.) And if they think that anybody will do anything except hang out with the people they already know, plus assorted new kids... And the worst part is that I can't have an unfortunately-timed illness any of those days, because they include actually relevant things like book distribution and college meetings in the middle of it all.
That tangent aside, I got my schedule a few days ago. Yes, it could've been worse, but I'm not exactly thrilled.
Some background:
Sophomore year, I took AP Physics B. I was the first sophomore ever to do that. I was the only one in the class who got a 5 on the AP that year. This last year, I squandered my life with Chemistry 1, because our incompetent head of Upper School, who is a woman whose gait resembles that of a velociraptor, and whose girth resembles that of a hunchback whale, was somehow unable to schedule me for a real science class. Over the course of the past year, I and a group of friends of mine have appealed to and convinced the administration of the school to offer "Advanced Physics with Calculus," which means Physics C minus official AP certification. I reiterate: I personally worked to get this course offered for the first time this year because I want to take a higher-level class.
And so, what happens? I get my schedule, and, guess the scheduling conflict, kidz! NO PHYSICS C. Yes, I realize that schedules are generated by some piece-of-carp hacked-together computer program that ensures "optimal" results for all students. But is it not possible to apply a little, oh, I dunno, intelligence to these things? Jack Jockass won't give a damn that underwater basketweaving won't fit in his schedule, so he has another free study hall to make noise in the library with his friends. But apparently, it doesn't occur to anyone that MAYBE the CLASS I WORKED TO HAVE OFFERED just MIGHT be SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT to me!
So now, I'm going to have to schedule a meeting with the scheduling woman in the extremely narrow three-day opportunity window she oh-so-generously offered to make it clear that I will be taking every class I signed up for, whether in class or as independent study. Oh, boy, that'll be fun. Especially since how last year she didn't respond to any phone calls or email until I finally just drove over there (didn't have a license yet, so had to drag poor mother along).
Personal anecdote 2:
On the SAT, I got an 800 in writing, 770 in math, 790 in reading. On the SAT IIs, I got all 800s in literature, math 2, and physics.
I (or my parents, officially) then get a form letter from the school about how SAT improvement classes are being offered! Hooray!
Again, I understand it's automation, and I understand it's a form letter. And again, why can't they apply a little bit of intelligence!!??!
My father was supposed to write the responsible party a fake-naive email asking if my scores weren't satisfactory, since we got that letter. I need to remind him...
So those were two personal examples. Both are little things. But they represent what I think is the fundamental problem with out educational system today: lack of intelligence.
It's getting late, I have been typing long, and I should really get some sleep. I'll pick up tomorrow.
Meanwhile, your thoughts on education, siblings?
Does your school offer you some kind of help with vocation seeking?
Most young people have serious problems on deciding what they want to do in life.
Years ago, I toyed with the idea of an alternative school system:
Say a child enters school aged five. The first 4 years I would teach them the basics of writing, reading, math, bit of history, geography, physics, biology etc. Then the child would join a 'Work Group' (WG) of its choice. There would be a number of WG, reflecting/ simulating real vocation.
This system would cut down on wasting precious learning years on something (like algebra) the student might never apply/ need in your future vocation as adult. Also, it would enable young people to discover and develop their unique abilities and talents far earlier.
Quote from: jjjSay a child enters school aged five. The first 4 years I would teach them the basics of writing, reading, math, bit of history, geography, physics, biology etc. Then the child would join a 'Work Group' (WG) of its choice. There would be a number of WG, reflecting/ simulating real vocation.
Isn't it too early for a child to join a "work group" at the age of nine?
How does a child decide that it doesn't need algebra at the age of nine? The parents? I didn't want to do algebra at the age of nine, and now I'm glad I didn't reject it, as I needed it in my later years.
IMO, those "work groups" as you suggested would make sence later, at middle school (or high school), not so early. First it is necessary to get a practical knowledge. Eg. I'm not a fan of history, but there are things, one should know - like WWII, WWI etc. In order to build up an overall intelligence about our past and build an opinion about it.
There's a much bigger problems in schools (speaking of the example of some European systems, don't know about the others, as I have no personal experience with them). In school, children are just taught to read and memorise things (and they forget a lot after the exam). They're not taught to think about the things they read. Once arriving at university (or any higher degree school), they are asked to think about things, build their opinions, use the things theyre taught on a practical level and not just memorise them. This constitutes a problem, as many people don't know how.
QuoteIsn't it too early for a child to join a "work group" at the age of nine?
OK, let's call this group "Hobby Group"( HG)! This indicates that the child is going to choose a HG it likes best! After some time the teacher is going to find out if the child is good at it or if it only went to this HG for other reasons, just because the friend joint it or, because there they make cakes, for example.
QuoteHow does a child decide that it doesn't need algebra at the age of nine? The parents? I didn't want to do algebra at the age of nine, and now I'm glad I didn't reject it, as I needed it in my later years.
If the HG is such that algebra is vital than of course this HG teaches it.
QuoteIMO, those "work groups" as you suggested would make sence later, at middle school (or high school), not so early.
The point is... it offers the child to discover and develop its unique abilities and talents as early as possible. The earlier the better, because it's far easier to learn when one is younger.
They're not taught to think about the things they read. Once arriving at university (or any higher degree school), they are asked to think about things, build their opinions, use the things they are taught on a practical level and not just memorise them.
Yes... you nearly got it. >>> They should not only read and think about it... but learn to originate new ideas from what they study!
That's still not going to work. Most nine years old I know what to play video games and run around outside. I doubt that those things are going to be useful as adults...unless they join the army.
High school makes more sense.
Quote from: jjjOK, let's call this group "Hobby Group"( HG)! This indicates that the child is going to choose a HG it likes best! After some time the teacher is going to find out if the child is good at it or if it only went to this HG for other reasons, just because the friend joint it or, because there they make cakes, for example.
First of all, I had no problem with the term "work group" as such (although it might imply child labour a little;)) but more, how does a child decide what it is good in? At the age of nine, the majority of children don't know what they want to do in their future, hell, I wanted to be an astronaout, policeman, firefighter and similiar till the age of like ten... ;D At the age of nine, a child has not yet made it's own opinion (in majority of cases) about the world, the parents still decide a lot about a child't "hobbies"...
Another problem with the teacher deciding - I lose now one year in one "HG", because it takes one yeasr for me to find out that I'm no good at algebra, but am a better writer. Now I want to join the "literature" HG. But I've already lost a year in the other one, do I have to repeat one year of HG?
Quote from: Alpaca on August 18, 2007, 06:45:33 AM
Meanwhile, your thoughts on education, siblings?
My experience of British state education is that it was (is?) something of a lottery. At my junior school (ages 7-11) in the Sixties the teachers didn't drive kids to work hard; there was this sort of ethos that it didn't matter if kids couldn't read or write properly because they probably had some sort of compensating artistic skill, and that forcing them to learn was in some way evil and postponing the social revolution. With hindsight I also realize they tried every trendy teaching technique going. To this day I still don't know what coloured wooden blocks have to do with teaching multiplication.
My dad ended up teaching me to read, write, tell the time, and do maths, and on his twenty minutes a day extra tuition I went from bottom to top of the class.
My secondary school was completely different. The headmaster was an ex-RAF fighter pilot. He was a fairly right wing, authoritarian figure (you'd get an hour's detention writing out times tables for talking in the lunch queue for example). On the other hand he had an absolute conviction that children, whatever their background, could and should achieve the best, and recruited a staff that believed and enabled that.
From the way parents in Britain move house to get into the catchment areas of good schools, I suspect nothing has changed on this front.
I think this background probably also explains why I'm more right wing than many here. Educated by socialists I'd have been spending the rest of my life pressing the same button on a factory stamping machine; it was the right-wingers who drove my personal social mobility.
So, from my own experience, I agree with Kanaloa and Kiyoodle. You can't let kids of 9 or younger choose their own syllabus. It might be a boon for the one Mozart or Einstein in a school, but it would wreck the futures of all the others.
On Alpaca's scheduling problems, is the lack of planning to do with school size? After Columbine etc the press here reported that some U.S. schools are so large the pupils may have never seen the headmaster.
From my interests now, and for the past 40 years, I should probably have had a career in something to do with Biology, or Ecology, or evolutionary biology, or cognitive neuroscience.
Neither my primary or secondary schools had any courses in biology. I never had a chance.
I 'fell' into computer apllication systems design more of less by chace. I've been very successful at it.
But it's not what I like to talk about, read about, study, or think about. :headbang:
No, beagle, this is a small, private school. I happen to know - and have good relations with - all the staff members who directly affect me. This is, to a greater or lesser extent, true for all the students at the school.
Here's my education problem: I've never been challenged. The only effort I've seriously had to expend that challenged me was whenever I was assigned busywork. (Yes, there are a few notable exceptions in some of the better teachers I've had.)
I get the distinct feeling that I'm way, way behind where I could be academically. I get all the good grades, and everything, take the most challenging classes, yadda yadda. I still feel lazy. I get home, do the minimum amount of homework required - that is, do only the homework that will affect my grade, not the homework "for my own good" - and then play piano or do techie stuff. Piano and techie stuff are what I exert effort towards. School is just too damn easy.
That's my problem with the educational system in a nutshell. I have plenty more to go on about, but that summarizes it: My parents are paying $15000 a year for it (and public schools are even worse), and I don't feel like I'm learning as much as I could be.
Amen, 'Paca! I felt like that all high school (I went to public schools, too, so you're probably right).
That really depends on the principal (what we call the headmaster, I suppose). I went to a high school with ~2,800 kids, and for the first three years, I saw the principal regularly, even though I NEVER went to games and such.
My senior year, we got a new one, and throughout the year, I saw him maybe three times the entire year. Once when he stopped into my AP gov class, once at a debate tournament, and once at a senior meeting.
There was no significant difference in school size.
Honestly, at nine, I wanted to be a vet, like every other little girl in the country. I plan to be in something completely different now--international business law.
At nine, I probably couldn't have told you what was going to do the next day. Or what happened yesterday.
And furthermore, I honestly think even high school is a little too early to do much more than narrow the field. I switched professions about seven times in four years. Not even in the same professional vicinity from one time to the next half the time.
And often enough, parents still control the activities of high school kids. I've known many kids who hated piano, football, or whatever, and had to it. Or kids who's parents discouraged them from things they liked.
Heh...I went to US public schools.
Bored silly the whole way through, often chose to ignore the classroom totally and read a book. Got away with it because of certain capabilities. (Called to the chalkboard to diagram a sentence in a class where I hadn't bothered to open the textbook, I didn't put down my novel, just walked up, looked at it a second, diagrammed it and walked away. The teacher had put up a rather complex sentence, full of all sorts of clauses, expecting to embarrass me. I'd reviewed the information the day before and winged it.)
I think that standardized education does a grave disservice to the disparate ends of the spectrum. (And that standardized testing is the invention of the foulest fiends...) Alpaca didn't need to spend 90+% of his 'educational career, bored out of his mind any more than I did. i don't know what it's done for him, but for me, it reinforced stereotypes that were prevalent back then, with the resulting mess being my abysmal abilities to deal with math and science.
However, give me NON-abstract math and I am fine, and most medically-related science is a snap...I have deciphered journal articles for some of the residents, interns and Post Doc Fellows that I would see at MD Anderson.
That private schools have chosen to align their systems along the same futile pathways as public schools is the fault of university admissions coordinators. <insert rant here>
In a perfect world, students would be able to progress at their own pace. This world isn't perfect, and it's too big. The availability of individualized education is rare to non-existent, and most 'educators' are so rule-bound that actually allowing someone to work to level is a MAJOR infraction worthy of stoning.
AS to knowing what you want to be when you grow up...I have not decided yet. Any suggestions?
Lol, still figuring it out myself.
I agree. I honestly hated most of what we did, because it was boring. English comp was something like that. Slept through the class, or ignored the teacher (who was a twit anyway) and got an A in the class.
I did enjoy science, though. We had really good science teachers, and I was mostly able to take what I liked. Biology, zoology, chem, bio engineering, environmental, botany, and advanced topics.
I think one of the flaws that public and lower schools have is that so much of it is abstract. I have actual, useful formulas to use for my math class now, and it makes so much more sense. I have "Use Addler's formula to determine what doseage of medicine a child should receive" instead of "If Billy is 14, and Svetlana is six years less than twice his age..."
I hated that.
And there's so much bull crap and non-subject stuff going on in class. My comp class was all reading, almost no writing. Some of which is understandable, but mostly it was a way for her not to actually have to grade our essays, because she didn't assign them.
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on August 18, 2007, 11:01:53 PM
<insert rant here>
As you wish. :mrgreen:
I'm going into my senior year of high school now. Time to freak out about college admissions! OMG!!!!1!1111!1!!!1one!
"The college admissions game" is a phrase that makes me want to strangle someone. What courses will "look best to colleges?" How can I hype up any and all good deeds I've ever done to make me look like a community service martyr? How can I play up my background to make me seem more diverse? Hmm, I'd better schedule some college visits - not because I want to see a college, but because I need to convince them how motivated I am towards them. (For the record, for all of the colleges I've toured and looked at, I have purposely NEVER stopped by admissions to fill out an information card.)
Fuck that. I've got better things to do for the first half of my senior year than play "the college admissions game." Like
learn. Y'know, that thing I'm also supposed to do in college? If I want to play a game, my friend has a Risk board. I'm not going to spend my time figuring out the best way to prostrate myself in front of hordes of asinine admissions "experts." I'm going to figure out who can give me the education I want, apply, and go.
Edit: Oh, Kanaloa, I'm completely sympathetic about the math "word problems." That's a whole 'nother rant, because I think math is taught completely the wrong way.
Amen to that! I think a lot of things are taught incorrectly, because we're taught by professional teachers, not professional writers, mathematicians, etc. And 'coz text book writers get paid by the word, not the quality of the content.
I never bothered with that either, and got into a damn good college.
I got word about the possible scholarship and applied. Got in. Didn't worry about it. (Didn't go, but that was money, not the lack of opportunity.)
Enjoy your senior year, get some scholarships and grants. Do write a good entry essay, and call it done.
Alpaca, with just those SAT's and the stuff you've done with the children's theater...I would suspect you'd have them throwing themselves at your feet, begging and pleading.
Let me suggest Texas A&M. Because it's 25 miles away... ;) :mrgreen:
Or Rice, if you think music may be the first degree you want. (85 miles.)
True that! You have amazing scores.
Rice is on "the list," Dee Dee, although music ain't gonna be a major, I don't think - it'll stay a hobby.
Viva physics!
For the record, here's the list now:
- Berkeley
- Cal Tech
- Carleton College (probably not)
- Carnegie Mellon
- Case Western
- Chicago
- Cornell
- Harvey Mudd
- Johns Hopkins
MIT - Don't wanna do undergrad there. Too impersonal.New College of Florida - Hell no. Wanna get out of this damn state.- Chapel Hill
- Rensselaer - Safety school
- Rice
- Stanford
- Worcester Polytechnic - Safety school
The whole "safety school" thing gets me, too, by the way. I either want to go to a college or I don't.
RICE!!
Dang, all the people I used to know there are long retired.
Stanford is fantastic! I'm planning to apply there next fall. I live a couple of hours from there.
Really liked it when I visited. Beautiful campus, IMHO.
Get out of Florida, unless you're good at football. :mrgreen:
Come to england and study at a proper university ;)
and get out of that nasty private funded school you terrible capitalist imperialist american borgeois lacky of the corporate State! :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag:
on the basis of political bias you could go to the peoples republic of Berkley
Quote from: goat starer on August 19, 2007, 12:42:34 PM
Come to england and study at a proper university ;)
Glad to see the usual post A-level results arguments about standards have broken out as usual. (lets have an A+*++ grade so the universities wont even need to interview; whatever you do, do not change the start of the A band so it's harder to get an A at all).
When I was in London a few summers ago, one day took a trip to Cambridge. Gorgeous.
Quote from: Alpaca on August 18, 2007, 10:19:33 PM
Here's my education problem: I've never been challenged. The only effort I've seriously had to expend that challenged me was whenever I was assigned busywork. (Yes, there are a few notable exceptions in some of the better teachers I've had.)
That is a bit surprising if you go to a private school. When I went to college I mixed with people from the top UK schools (Winchester, St. Pauls etc) for the first time, and they had already done half the first year's syllabus while still at school. Or have you already reached that point and are still challenge-less? :o
I suppose there's nothing to stop you getting hold of university level texts and reading ahead yourself. These days quite a lot of good degree course tutorial material is available free online. This'll be good practice for when you have to set your own workload and get you used to situations where you can't do all the questions.
I don't know if you've seen the Stephen Hawking biography film "Brief History of Time", but that captures the dismay of Hawking's fellow students in finding he could answer more questions correctly in an hour than they could do combined in a week. You're about to enter an environment where the sky (or the spacetime metric, or something) is the limit.
Quote from: Alpaca
When I was in London a few summers ago, one day took a trip to Cambridge. Gorgeous.
Not bad for physics with theatre as an outside interest either. Though you wouldn't get much time off from the course to do any serious acting. Be careful to avoid its Thames Valley rival though. Terrible place ;)
I still go to high school. One more year before college, so I haven't gotten there yet.
I take AP-level classes. Dunno if you're familiar with that program - think it's an American thing. The idea is to offer college-level classes to high school students so they can move onto the more advanced stuff in college right away.
Those ain't challenging either. You do make a good point about university texts, though. I might have to look at some.
t's my understanding that, to a large extent, Amercian undergraduate degrees overlap with '6th form in High school' in the UK. An American Batchelors degree is only a little above 'A' levels in the UK. (An american official rating service certified my 'S' level GCE's as equivalent to an American BSc, for the US Government.) The correspondence is close for Masters and PhDs but an American Masters takes several years, a UK Masters often only one.
This may explain a lot of Alpaca's frustration, to our UK members. :P
So an American Masters covers a batchelors here in UK and then overtakes it? Or where does the "gap" get filled?
Ah, right.
There used to be a really cool book of outre physics problems called "Cavendish Problems in Classical Physics" which I could pretty much guarantee would be challenging, but unfortunately it's out of print.
It had questions to do with calculating when a plane's wheels would stop skidding on landing, and other lateral thinking questions like that which got away from the traditional "weightless pulley, frictionless plane" artificial questions of school.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on August 19, 2007, 04:49:22 PM
So an American Masters covers a batchelors here in UK and then overtakes it? Or where does the "gap" get filled?
That's about it. I think American Masters covers the last two years of a UK Batchelors
and the UK Masters.
A Masters or a Phd in either country is strictly equivalent...
I agree. I've been there twice for tournaments, and I spent a lot of time wandering the campus. The plaza in front of the chapel is especially nice.
Quote from: beagle on August 19, 2007, 04:11:53 PM
. Though you wouldn't get much time off from the course to do any serious acting. Be careful to avoid its Thames Valley rival though. Terrible place ;)
couldnt agree more. hate the place. though despite having to write 16 3000 word essays a term instead of the uk standard of 2 i still found plenty of time for acting. amphetamines can expand time no end!
PS. this is NOT an endorsement of drug taking unless you want heart palpitations and a 2.2
Quote from: beagle on August 19, 2007, 04:11:53 PM
. Though you wouldn't get much time off from the course to do any serious acting.
That's covered by the Actor's Third. Apart from those that get Firsts anyway.
Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on August 18, 2007, 08:49:57 PM
First of all, I had no problem with the term "work group" as such (although it might imply child labour a little;)) but more, how does a child decide what it is good in? At the age of nine, the majority of children don't know what they want to do in their future, hell, I wanted to be an astronaout, policeman, firefighter and similiar till the age of like ten... ;D At the age of nine, a child has not yet made it's own opinion (in majority of cases) about the world, the parents still decide a lot about a child't "hobbies"...
Heck... by my count, I've seriously pursued four different career paths*, and three of them** weren't even on my radar when I was in high school, including the one I ended up in.
*or five, if you include the stuff I do as a hobby and would do professionally if I could make a living wage at it... but can't, because you can't make a living wage at it on this continent.
** or four, if you count the above-mentioned hobby.
Exactly.
Whole regions of thought and possibilities open up in college. It's very hard to choose then (or now, in my case), much less in high school!
So, here's the rant about math education that I've had bottled up for a while.
The teaching of math seems to be more commonly attacked than the teaching of any other subject. One of the most common ideas I hear is to make Algebra optional. Because "why force kids to learn abstract concepts they'll never use?"
I find this argument extremely flawed. First, the fact is that Algebra is useful, and everybody uses it, whether they realize it or not, even though it's not being used in the abstract form found in the math class. But the arguments about practical application aside, I find the entire logic ludicrous. It's like saying "why should kids have to take English classes once they've achieved passable literacy in fifth grade?"
I think the cause of opposition to greater-than-basic math education isn't the material itself; it's the method of teaching. At some point between the purely practical applications of math taught in elementary school and, say, Algebra, since we're using that example, the curriculum focus shifts abruptly. Kid who have thus far only known math as a way to determine how much cow feed farmer Bob needs to buy if he has 26 cows are suddenly expected to jump into purely theoretical, abstract logical thinking in the language of math. It's now no longer a line graph of money vs. time. Instead, it's now y=a(t).
Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with abstract mathematical thinking. I supremely enjoy my abstract math classes (I'll be taking AP Calculus BC this year). But the half-assed way math education is undertaken beyond elementary school can ruin the experience for anyone. Right now, abstract concepts are taught, but we pretend they aren't abstract. We have "word problems." "Bob invests $1000 at 4% interest compounded daily. How much money will he have after ten years? Look, kids! A practical application! Now that you see how you can use this 'in real life,' we can get back to talking about exponential functions, because now you'll obviously understand why there's such a thing as a horizontal asymptote!"
I think that's stupid. I learned exponential functions (formally, that is) freshman year of high school, so I'm going to compare that method of teaching to a ninth grade English class. The kids move through a number of vivid and exciting topics throughout the year: Types of conjunctions! Passive and active voice! Sentence structure! Of course, to show them how these things will apply "in real life," the English teacher would occasionally throw out innovative assignments, like: "Sheryl started a sentence with a baseball as the subject, but she now needs to tell her friend Karen that she caught it. Should Sheryl use the active or passive voice with the verb 'caught?' Well, that was exciting. Let's get back to diagramming sentences."
I dunno, maybe y'all have had different experiences in English education. Yes, of course, learning grammar and such is important and necessary. But there are two things that I've done through my entire educational career: reading and writing. And in the last few years, since late middle school, there's been no direct focus on spelling and grammar. If they've ever been alluded to, it was in the context of something I had read or something I had written. In other words, the abstract language concepts were applied to and taught through the practical application of English.
In math education, it's done the other way around: abstract concepts are taught, and then "practical" examples are forced into them. Once again, I've got nothing against abstract math education. I hope my calculus class doesn't change. But theory isn't for everyone. Before the level of math where pure theory is taught - wherever that's gonna be - students ought to have a choice. They can continue their math education in a theoretical direction suitable for those looking for a career in the sciences, or they can learn a more "day-to-day" variety. They'd acquire the same knowledge as they do under the present system, but differently. Right now, mathematically inclined students finally get to the high-level courses they want after dying of boredom for a few years, while those who aren't mathematically inclined struggle and barely make it through their math credit requirements, and then forget the abstract concepts they've never learned to apply.
Instead, they could branch off. I contend that for someone with the proper abilities and motivation, all of high school Algebra can be a one-year affair. Geometry and trigonometry can also be easily lumped together in a year. One year after "branching off," students who love math could be taking a proper statistics course. Or two years after "branching off," they could be in calculus.
On the other hand, students who don't like math for the sake of math can branch off into things that they actually will use. By the end of high school, they will have acquired the level of abstract mathematical knowledge they get under the present system, or more. But it'll be acquired in a way centered around problem-solving. Maybe they won't know all about graph shifts and functions, but when they look at a table of data, instead of guesstimating from the numbers they see, they'll visualize a graph and know what it means. And ALL of us see tables of data in real life.
Of course, all of this isn't ideal. It assumes the present overall conditions of our educational system: standardized and impersonal. I think that over at TOP, Chatty once posted something very nice about education reform to make it individualized. That's a beautiful vision. For now, though, I'm working with what I got: the system that I'm currently all tied up in.
Quote from: Alpaca on August 24, 2007, 03:14:39 AM
I think that's stupid. I learned exponential functions (formally, that is) freshman year of high school, so I'm going to compare that method of teaching to a ninth grade English class. The kids move through a number of vivid and exciting topics throughout the year: Types of conjunctions! Passive and active voice! Sentence structure! Of course, to show them how these things will apply "in real life," the English teacher would occasionally throw out innovative assignments, like: "Sheryl started a sentence with a baseball as the subject, but she now needs to tell her friend Karen that she caught it. Should Sheryl use the active or passive voice with the verb 'caught?' Well, that was exciting. Let's get back to diagramming sentences."
I dunno, maybe y'all have had different experiences in English education. Yes, of course, learning grammar and such is important and necessary. But there are two things that I've done through my entire educational career: reading and writing. And in the last few years, since late middle school, there's been no direct focus on spelling and grammar. If they've ever been alluded to, it was in the context of something I had read or something I had written. In other words, the abstract language concepts were applied to and taught through the practical application of English.
My formal English education was quite blatantly.... crap. And mostly taught (in high school, at least 3/4 years) by a senile, possibly insane, teacher who took off a week every September to get the dope crop harvested. Most of the grasp of theoretical language concepts I have comes from French.
It's probably pretty apparent that most of my grasp of written English is based on science textbooks and personal reading, fleshed out by yakking on teh internets. I used to dread creative writing (still don't like it much), as it was always approached in school by giving writing assignments, not by teaching how to develop a story. Give me an essay
please, or teach me how to write a bloody story! And in 1st year college English (for technical writers), I was once accused by the professor of not putting any original thought into an essay.... um, duh? I cited the *#&% references and reported the objective info, and dutifully based my subjective arguments/interpretations on that - the only bloody things I was ever actually taught to write was technical material, and pretty poorly at that! >:(
I've always taken joy in the theoretical manipulation of numbers but I feel I was cheated all along the way by the school system (I'm sure most of you have heard the "-1" story from Grade 1). I was the top in my school in mathematics competitions - but got whupped in regional competions and in college calculus the first time around (passed, but when I can only get 75% of the final exam done in 3 hours - and pull pretty close to 100% on that 75% - something is up). I suspect there's a strong dose of 'small school' effects in my education; split classes in primary school, limited electives in high school (they taught Physics 12 every 2 years. ::) ).
Point taken on splitting theoretical and practical maths, but Algebra is NOT optional! It's the basis of damn near everything one will use in day-to-day applications (unit conversion, home economy, etc). Ditto on geometry (heh, but I took more wood shop than anything else in HS, so it was always handy).
I have some deep reservations about the 'dumbing down' of Western school systems, and nearly as deep reservations about the workloads and competitive nature of East Asian systems... (which BTW produce WONDERFUL educational results at the expense of the student) is there a happy medium?
I get REALLY pissed off when science is treated as an elective. IMO, today's world demands basic knowledge of biology and chemistry simply to feed oneself safely, and IMO there are MANY evils in this world that could be mitigated somewhat if science was properly taught all the way through the school system, rather than being footnoted in during the last few years of high school. I'd personally love to see non-elective sciences being directed at practical applications for the 'non-science' kids, particularly in the areas of nutrition, health/hygene and the environment, and it needs to be a heck of a lot more engaging than what's currently being taught. [/rant]
I guess I didn't make my "splitting up" idea clear enough. The point is not to reduce the mathematical material learned for less mathematically inclined kids - not by any means! They ought to learn as much or more than under the current system, but learn it in a way that's targeted at applications rather than theory. Meanwhile, the theoreticians can zoom through curriculum that's usually bogged down to a painfully slow pace by classes that try to teach mathematically talented and untalented kids at the same time.
Fully agree with you about science education. Here's my school's system: Freshman year, biology is absolutely required. Then, during the next three years, two science credits are required.
Sophomore year, I jumped straight to AP Physics. It was awesome. Then, last year, I had a scheduling conflict, so rather than go science-less, I decided to take Chem 1. Now, Chem 1 and Physics 1 are the two classes that people with no interest in science take. VERY basic. PAINFULLY basic. I had fun in Chem 1, though, since the teacher is awesome. Her doctorate is in Chemistry, but she knows stuff from all fields of physical science. While discussing simple things like ionic bonds, she and I would digress into discussions of the electron cloud model, and quantum physics, and whoosh!
Still, the class was not at that level, but the way she taught it was brilliant. She fully acknowledged that it was not for future Nobel Laureates in Chemistry. And so the emphasis throughout the whole thing was impact on life. We did the organic stuff, and the emphasis was on food, diet, health. We did hydrocarbon stuff, and the emphasis was on petroleum, conservation, all that. Water - conservation. And so forth. Even though I didn't get the raw scientific education I wanted that year, I still appreciated the class.
By the way, funny story. This year I'll be taking AP Chem. Funnily enough, I didn't take the prerequisite Chem 2 because of the scheduling conflict, but I talked to the teacher and she said that I could take the AP class. Told me to learn Chem 2 over the summer. Funnily enough, I didn't get the book until today. Funnily enough, school starts Monday.
This is going to be an "accelerated course." :mrgreen: (I'm fully confident that I'll do it.)
Quote from: Alpaca on August 24, 2007, 05:11:01 AM
I guess I didn't make my "splitting up" idea clear enough. The point is not to reduce the mathematical material learned for less mathematically inclined kids - not by any means! They ought to learn as much or more than under the current system, but learn it in a way that's targeted at applications rather than theory. Meanwhile, the theoreticians can zoom through curriculum that's usually bogged down to a painfully slow pace by classes that try to teach mathematically talented and untalented kids at the same time.
I got it, but I think I butchered getting across that I got it in my post. ^^
Personally, I always did best to learn the theory, and then work it through some problems. I quite enjoy word problems in the same way I like riddles, but they can be an extra level of complexity on a concept if one is not good at picking out pertinent info (another skill that is generally not taught at all).
But I highly support making MOST of the 'hard' subjects life-skill based for those who
aren't going on to further education after high school. Math lends itself very well to
applied skills. I picked up some courses just for life skills, like a throwaway accounting
elective course - taught me to do my taxes.
S'why I'm a chem kid... it's all pretty much applied algebra with lovely word problems - and explosions. If you get a chance later in your education career, and you want to see some rather interesting modeling applications for moderately advanced math, try to pick up a population biology course; that and environmental organic chemistry (also lots of applied but simpler math) are what led me down the path to my current (math-deprived) job.
Sounds like your chem course was pretty close to what I'd like to see the 'basic' sciences address.
Just shout if you need some extra help in AP Chem (I doubt you will) - I'm pretty rusty on the finer points, but I spent my first year of tech school re-teaching basic chemistry to the rest of the class in after class study sessions, since the teacher butchered it regularly - I got the highest marks in his classes (he taught 3 or 4 over the 2 years) because I slept through them... I found that when I paid attention I actually de-learned stuff I already knew. :P
Memorable quote from said teacher: "How much acid is in the pot"? Indeed. He used to go off on class-long analogies about sail boats.... ::)
Alpaca--- you took AP Physics in sophmore year?
do you need/want/desire/go that way/ a girlfriend-- no not me
I have a daughter and I'm always looking for potential in the male population--she is straight so if you are then ?????
I'm really kidding- she is a pain and only 17 herself :mrgreen: (please take no offense)
I'm taking math (Ok it is elementary algebra- yes I'm a senior, yes I put it off, yes I am sorry) right now and it is kicking my butt-- my university uses an online system called Aleks- we do attend class and all but I still need more one on one with it- I grasp it fine and then have issues with the exams( my retention is slow to hold it).
I am one of math untalented--- I agree, different classes for different uses/talents.
Quote from: anthrobabe on August 24, 2007, 02:36:40 PM
she is a pain
Let Alpaca judge that by himself. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 24, 2007, 02:47:46 PM
Quote from: anthrobabe on August 24, 2007, 02:36:40 PM
she is a pain
Let Alpaca judge that by himself. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
I'm trying to bait the hook--- I'm trying
Oh- she is 5'9", medium brown hair, brown eyes, of course her mommy thinks she is beautiful-- but she gets looks, actually she snaps heads around.
Actually she is a good "kiddo"- no trouble out of her- has pretty good sense. ;)
This brings to mind the last person (http://www.venganza.org/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3) who had a relationship arranged for him by someone's mother through the interwebs...
Quote from: Alpaca on August 24, 2007, 03:27:21 PM
This brings to mind the last person (http://www.venganza.org/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3) who had a relationship arranged for him by someone's mother through the interwebs...
:rockon:
:ROFL:
all in good fun-
Oooh dear.
I agree with Alpaca completely.
Personally, I hate math. I hate the way it's taught. They teach it in as a convoluted way as possible. Honestly, I need to have it explained in practical terms, and then you can throw the theory at me later when I can do it backwards and forewards.
I would agree that it needs to be split. I'm not probably going to use science level math very often as a lawyer or an intelligence analyst. I should now it, and understand it, but I don't need it.
I also agree that science needs to be more of a requirement. We had to have biology and a lab science to escape. I ended up with seven years' worth of science (bio, zoology, chem, AP environ, bioengineering, honors chem and botany) but most don't take any science their junior and senior years 'round here.
I also think the way English is taught is wrong. I really have no grasp of anything more complex than conjunctions and verbs. Don't ask me to diagram sentences, because I can't. They teach it too early and wrongly. They also teach us to write incorrectly. They have this silly thing about diagrams and outlines and rewriting the same paper eighty zillion times. Very illogical. And when you hit college, they may have to reteach you to write.
One of my colleagues markets text mining software. He reckons Britain and the U.S. are the only countries in the world where he first has to explain what nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs are.
Elsewhere the prodigies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6961865.stm) are getting younger...
what are adjectives?
I think?
Cool kid!
Quote from: goat starer on August 24, 2007, 09:06:01 PM
what are adjectives?
It's what you call swear words after you add an 'ing' suffix and put it in front of a pejorative. ;)
I've begun to believe that the problems with education are caused by educational theorists.
Every time you turn around, 'teaching' is be redefined into "application of another theory". Just in READING...Whole Language, See and Say, Phonics, Phonetics...and a thousand more 'theories' on the most effective way to teach. One the poor kid can read, there are another 100 thousand MORE theories of education...all designed to reinforce the ego of their 'founder' and carefully implemented in the least helpful way to the end users of the educational product--the student.
If there were more emphasis on imparting needed knowledge and less emphasis on teaching to the test, teaching in accordance with a specific process or theory and a realization that the system should serve the LEARNER, not the other way around, we'd have better educated students and fewer teachers that hate to teach.
Now don't go and get all logical on us, please Chatty. You know that the edumacashum theorists get all confused when you start pointing out the blindingly obvious. :D
someone said diagramming sentences
:dragon: fluffy says NO ( I have PTSD from 9th grade English)
Education Theory---- big problem
aka
"no child left behind"
the teachers can't do anything but teach the test-they are stuck
but almost no one teaches this kiddos (and if they miss it at home then they need it at school) critical thinking
our little (and not so little scholars) need to have the phrases
(oh really?)
(have you tested that)
(where did you get that information and how do you know it is factual?)
(prove it!)
and
(just because many people believe something does not make it true.)
instead of so much of the misinformation they get and have no tool to evaluate.
we do need math(english/language/history) etc taught on different levels-- not dumbed down levels like so many are afraid of
but different
usable and relevant levels
their are basics we all need but then do some specialization and teach in different ways to cover all and get them literate enough to think for themselves.
You are indeed right, Anthro.
My mother is a teacher in a very poor elementary school, and she spends the entire year trying to teach the kids so they're ready for the test (she very good at it, actually). She also manages to teach them to read well.
But she spends so much time teaching reading that other topics--history, geography, math (not as much, but to some degree), and science are crammed in the week before the test.
And that's no way to teach anything, but it's actually teach or keep her job.
I am thorn about standarised tests, may be because I survived a grueling 18 hour test split in 3 6 hour sessions prior to my high school graduation back home. The test in itself will never be perfect but the results gave a good anecdotal correlation with the academic performance of my classmates.
In any case, what may be the main problem with education is the wholesale approach to the problem. Different kids may learn better with different approaches but that would imply extra work by identifying who learns better in which way, and according to their knowledge and ability to learn.
I was thinking about that recently.
Divide the kids up according to how they learn, and teach to that. All the auditory kids, in one class, visual in another, etc.
I'm not sure if it would work, but it's a thought.
I've read a nice quote the other day about education that might fit in here:
Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.
- Robert Frost (1874 - 1963)
Just thought I'd post it...
Quote from: Kanaloa the Squidly on August 26, 2007, 12:01:16 AM
I was thinking about that recently.
Divide the kids up according to how they learn, and teach to that. All the auditory kids, in one class, visual in another, etc.
I'm not sure if it would work, but it's a thought.
It would certainly be a step in the right direction. I think that any division/custom-tailoring of the educational experience, according to any dimension, is a step in the right direction. Ultimately, the solution is completely individualized education, I think, and we're gonna get there if we keep on offering specialized options.
I doubt that a completely individualized education is a good idea. You need to learn how to deal with others no matter how unpleasant it may be.
Oh, no, not in the sense of individualization being equal to isolation! Not by any means! Sorry I didn't make myself clear.
Education ought to be individualized in the sense that there is no standard progression of classes. No such thing as "first grade math," then "second grade math," then "third grade math," and so forth. Classes ought to be offered independent of grade level and based solely on the ability to do well in that class. There'd be even more interaction with other people then, instead of just with people from the same grade level.
Individual abilities and DISABILITIES need to be acknowledged as well. It's no secret here that I am dyslexic. My dyslexia is bizarre, even to the experts, because it's SYMBOLS based...yet I can read at an amazing rate, and often with 95%+ comprehension.
Only in English, only without lots of odd symbols (mathematic, scientific, runes, foreign words) thrown in.
Even though OTHERS didn't realize this early on, I did. And I tried VERY HARD to take all the right courses to get myself prepared for college. Failed first semester algebra TWICE, then took it from a brand new teacher...and made an A, made a B in second semester. She took the time to teach ME, OK, me and a band of similar mathphobes.
I say band advisedly. The next year, when she pulled strings to get us all into one Geometry 1 class, it was 34 people that I was already in either band or choir with, and 3 that I had been in orchestra with. All musicians. Mrs. Parker...Dr. Parker actually, had a Bachelor's in mathematics and in music, her Master's was in music, and her PhD in math, her EdD in teaching theory, and then a second Master's in music.
The correlations between music and math...obvious. Music is the only symbology I can read well. And she found US, grouped us and taught us. The results were amazing, even the deportment heads system wide were intrigued. BUT, to actually implement a program to identify and teach that way? OH, no, let's just take the kids that test well on basic standardized tests and stick them in accelerated classes at the start of Jr. High, and then when we send them to a NEW school, don't offer them the second year of that program, throw them, unaided, into the 'regular' program that was a flop everywhere, and has lead to a generation that graduated fro high school in the US from 1968-1972 being TOTALLY math-impaired.
Educational theorists never think about practical consequences of their high flown theory.
And "No Child Left Behind" means EVERY child is left behind. No child gets a decent education in favor of EVERYBODY being force fed the same crap to regurgitate, whether they LEARN or not. Dividing by capabilities means you can put you BEST teachers into the task of bringing the WORST students up to level...not reward the best with the best. The best WILL learn, you can't stop them...it's the slower learners that get shut down.
All fine and dandy for those who do not care to see TOO many people do well. (Yes, I sound like Goatie, and I mean it.) After all, SOMEBODY has to pick up the garbage, scrub the toilets, take care of the elderly and pick the delicate crops. You can't outsource EVERYTHING.
The American educational system is only as successful as the system allows it to be. Private schools, home schooling?? End runs around the fact that there will always be those that can't DO that...
Even with private schools there is no guarantee. In fact I believe that the success of the privately schooled is more related to the effort of parents or private tutors than the actual methodology of the schools.
Given my private school experience, I have to agree with you. I don't think the private schooling itself instills any potential for success. Private schooling is, for most of my classmates, a result of ridiculously rich parents. Their "success" in life is probably also going to be a result of that same thing.
I don't think that private schools should at all be looked to as any sort of model for future educational reform. Private schools are generally unhampered by the financial problems that limit many public schools, but, at least based on my private school, they're still slowed down by the same fundamental flaws in teaching methodology.
Private schools and homeschooling are a placebo for the well-to-do (in one way or another) that makes them think they're able of offering their children "more". Those able to afford private schools hope for the best that their money can by. They DO 'pay the money and take their chances'. Home-schooling parents are arrogant enough to either think THEY can cover all subjects adequately, OR that their "very specially blessed" children will be profaned and polluted by contact with others merely serve to provide the next generation of misfits (in one way or another) who will have to depend on their wits to survive a world where everything is not cushioned for them, or conformed TO them.
The recurring "school vouchers" program of the (moronic, IMO) soft-aggression Republicans is an attempt (promoted by the hard-aggression Repubs) to make the public school system another victim of the privatizing/outsourcing mania. In a country where the public is stupid enough to NOT see that privatizing means providing not only the infrastructure that the government HAD been paying for, but another number of layers of management, PLUS a hefty profit for the stockholders, the school voucher program is just another 'smoke and mirrors' promise for those unable to grasp the concept that The Wealthy DO NOT want you to join them...and will not cheerfully make you welcome if you do.
In the interim, who pays? In education, which IS the future, we ALL do. The Very Wealthy continue to have their wealth. Fine, but look at their descendants...how many generations of Hiltons were needed to produce Paris? 2? 3? Dumbing down in the most obvious way. (By the way, had Miss Paris NOT been accorded the private schooling but forced to attain a basic education, she might not have been making prawn videos at age 16.) The rest of society depends on skills and/or education to stay afloat in an economy that (rising tides) is being designed to NOT raise all boats, but to sink the smallest in many ways. As long as there's cannon fodder, and maids and someone to manicure the lawns...
The system of education in the US could do better, but it needs some decentralization, and less emphasis on uniformity as an end product. The British system seems to do a bit better, in many respects-especially beyond the primary school levels. What is bothering me the most is the growing evidence that the ability to read and write coherently is rapidly becoming a college level skill in the US, and mathematics beyond addition, subtraction and basic multiplication (including long division) have become the function of a calculator, not the human mind. You don't always HAVE to do it, but you DO need to know how.
No, not everybody needs a classical education, nor do they want it. But, people need to be educated in basics, to be able to read well, do enough is "sums" to know what they have to do to survive on a salary (or try to survive) and to function in the Real World. That may mean taking a look at learning skills and ability to do things CONSTANTLY, not just every 3 years with 'achievement tests'.
Given the system Alex envisioned, with more open levels of learning (Maria Montessori is clamoring in her grave, screaming YES, YES, let them learn!) many would self-level and then SEEK the things they needed to progress. Had I not been offered the ability to learn mathematics in a way I could understand it, I would have found it eventually...the hard way. (OK, I would have found the guy to teach it to me...and diverted his attention from the lack of 'normal' dates in favor of math tutoring by devious means. ;) Sorta like I did in college.) I NEEDED to learn. I had the initiative to seek what I needed. Some people don't have the initiative, others have a fear of taking that initiative.
So why make the student work so hard to try to learn?
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on August 26, 2007, 04:25:51 AM
(OK, I would have found the guy to teach it to me...and diverted his attention from the lack of 'normal' dates in favor of math tutoring by devious means. ;) Sorta like I did in college.)
:D Heh, I know this technique... she probably exceeded the extent of my math education by about Grade 9, but I had a text book and she didn't. The chemistry tutoring was much greater help to a former history and archeology major. It was the beer that sealed the deal, though. ;)
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on August 26, 2007, 04:25:51 AM
The recurring "school vouchers" program of the (moronic, IMO) soft-aggression Republicans is an attempt (promoted by the hard-aggression Repubs) to make the public school system another victim of the privatizing/outsourcing mania.
Dunno about elsewhere in the country, but here in Florida, it's also an excuse to give the church government money. With a few rare exceptions (one of which is my school), most of the private schools in the area are ultra-religious. Let's give them tax dollars!
By the way, Dee Dee, the prawn video thing ain't just Paris.
Freshman year (of high school, that is), they made one over here, at a party. (Then my English teacher and I spent the rest of the year making fun of one of the young starlets who happened to be in that English class. Although, by now, given some of the more recent stuff she's gotten herself into, that looks like child's play.)
Ha. We had a live version happen at my old high school two years ago. Threesome, in a dirt field (that's now an orchard, vineyard, and crop field) visible from the upstairs chemistry rooms.
Anyway. I think what my uncle did is a good way. He's an engineer at Ball-Aerospace. His kids went to public school, and he supplemented their education, mostly in math and science.
Granted, that requires the supplementer to know what they're doing already, but it's a start.
Without trying to sound pedantic, I have the feeling my kid has learned more from me in many aspects than in school. It has become a 'supposedly useful day care'. ::)
I've certainly learned more outside of school than in school. Absolutely.
DItto. Learned most of what I know of writing from my mother. Science and math have been the only exceptions. Learned lots from debate, which is (barely) school sanctioned.
Quote from: Alpaca on August 26, 2007, 08:38:46 PM
I've certainly learned more outside of school than in school. Absolutely.
Me too.
But most of the things I've learned outside of school are actually the things school is not really fond of... :mrgreen:
The pleasure of skipping classes and staying in the park........ :P
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on August 26, 2007, 01:07:44 AM
Dividing by capabilities means you can put you BEST teachers into the task of bringing the WORST students up to level...not reward the best with the best. The best WILL learn, you can't stop them...it's the slower learners that get shut down.
All fine and dandy for those who do not care to see TOO many people do well. (Yes, I sound like Goatie, and I mean it.)
Actually I'll be surprised if Goaty supports streaming by ability. That's an old Tory rather than Labour policy over here. Are you out there Goat?
It's not the streaming, it's what a better education will bring about...
The overall effect of a more effective system of education would be the ability for more people to work at an optimal level, which SHOULD (but rarely does) bring about a better rate of pay/higher socioeconomic standard. IOW, streaming as a contributor to better economic parity...which the 'ruling classes' do not want.
(Here's another rant...the politicization of education. But ,totally expected given the amount of money and the number of jobs involved. I would just like to see a parent advisory board and more importantly a student advisory board for every elected school board. Make the politicians accountable to SOMEBODY.)
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on August 27, 2007, 03:57:06 AM
The overall effect of a more effective system of education would be the ability for more people to work at an optimal level, which SHOULD (but rarely does) bring about a better rate of pay/higher socioeconomic standard. IOW, streaming as a contributor to better economic parity...which the 'ruling classes' do not want.
It's more complicated than that over here. Under the old class system if you had a degree you were middle class, but even if you were highly trained vocationally (plumber, carpenter, electrician etc) you were working class. The remnant of that thinking led to parents wanting their children to have degrees, even in Mickey Mouse subjects. Consequently the whole education system is distorted to ensure that every year more students get higher grades and more go to university, thus proving that politicians, students, and teachers are doing "a good job". If it's a plot of the politicians then it's one parents happily connive at. Only the employers fume that they have to teach new arrivals to count.
This led to such bizarre dislocations in the employment market that until recently people were leaving City finance jobs to retrain as plumbers because shortages meant they were paid far more. The new solution is to import all our skilled tradesmen from Eastern Europe while our own twenty-somethings use their degrees in surfing to sell fast food.
The disdain in which manual labor is held is a major part of the problem.
If pay scales were based on actual expenditure of effort...with physical effort being included, then the janitor would out-earn the Chairman of the Board.
I dare say that a business could exist MUCH longer without a CEO that it could without a cleaning staff.
While absolute income parity isn't the answer, the treating of every laborer as 'worthy his hire" would come a lot closer to making giant strides toward a more ethically balanced world economy.
"Degree inflation" is rampant. Several good universities have offered to scrape my assorted educational credits into some kind of degree plan that would, with the addition of a semester or so at their school, give me a Bachelor's degree, but more importantly, put me into grad school in one of their programs. (Yes, I have MOST of the hours needed for a BA in music education OR a BFA in Vocal Performance, or a BFA in Theatre or a BSci in Speech and Communications Theory, but I don't actually have it ALL for anything.) I have NOT fulfilled all degree requirements for anything...and have no real desire for a degree that would be useless or meaningless.
I found that what I WANTED to do was a totally different field. Yes, I could have been a quite cheerful professional musician (vocalist) or actor (regional theatre, maybe even Broadway, where character actors can actually play roles--NOT film.) But I LOVED my work as a florist. I was GOOD at it, and I SHOULD have been able to earn a living at it. Unfortunately...manual labor. Skilled, artistic, but manual labor, nonetheless.
Let's consider your physician and your automobile mechanic. Which do you respect more? The physician has learned about a closed, basically static physical system. If he guesses wrong at to a malfunction, he gets endless chances to guess again. If he never finds out WHAT the problem is, it's "a tough one" and you call in a BIGGER expert to guess for a while. The mechanic has to deal with constantly changing, constantly updated technology. Just as many interlocking systems, parts that are prone to MORE wear, and a mechanism that cannot TELL the repairman how it feels. (Much like the veterinarian, with multiple species that do not speak...and we undervalue them as well.)
Your mechanic must have MUCH more continuing education than your physician, but who gets the Big Bucks and the respect??
Now, I do understand that the 392nd guy in his class with a degree in Art History, after the schools have pumped out several decades of Art Historians that can't find relevant jobs either...just might have difficulties finding a relevant job. If the education snobbery hadn't been so strong, would he have been much happier following a different career path and being a welder or a tool and die maker, or even a florist?
One of the smartest people I know was forced to go to university when he wanted to go to trade school. Had he gone into a mettalurgy field from that direction, he'd have ended up in some well-paid trade...instead he did one semester of university studies, then took a full time radio job...then Army, then several other fields...and ended up an optician. 40 years later, he got to play with optical frame repair materials and was able to fix almost any metal frame flawlessly. Welding/soldering seems instinctive.
How many people get pushed into some field where they'll never be good at it and never be happy..because our (class-ridden, in one respect or another) society demands that a degree is needed to be educated or capable? Or, more importantly, paid well enough to live decently? The "trades", plumbing, auto repair, construction, etc. hold the "upper classes" hostage in order to live decently. Us low class folks learn to fix it all ourselves...necessity being the mother of creative auto repair. (Yes, I can fix a flat, change oil, do a brake job and have, in my day, rebuilt one carburetor, three transmissions, two water pumps and re-wired a Buick.) Am I GOOD at it? No. Can I DO it? Yes. Much like my home repair expertise, it's NEED, not skill.
Admitting that kind of ability is anathema to the educated...because LOW CLASS people do manual labor.
Rid the world of THAT attitude, and manual labor loses the negatives and more gets done WELL.
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on August 27, 2007, 10:07:29 PMI found that what I WANTED to do was a totally different field. Yes, I could have been a quite cheerful professional musician (vocalist) or actor (regional theatre, maybe even Broadway, where character actors can actually play roles--NOT film.) But I LOVED my work as a florist. I was GOOD at it, and I SHOULD have been able to earn a living at it. Unfortunately...manual labor. Skilled, artistic, but manual labor, nonetheless.
I'd be a cook if it paid (yes, a few top chef positions pay well, but that ceases to be a cooking job and becomes a HUGE upper management job IMO; if you're not at the very top of the game you don't make much beyond the average cook). Never got bored of it at the first restaurant I was at, and rarely didn't want to go to work... and while it's a bit tiring and stressful at times, it was nothing that couldn't be laughed off over an after-work beer.
OTOH, I'm also kicking myself for not finishing a degree straight through when I had the chance (in theory; in real life I must have gone to my tech school for a reason, since I met my bride-to-be in class there). I am planning to go back I think... there's a big jump in pay simply for having those letters behind your name, regardless of what the job actually entails. There's also many, many jobs that are limited to certain educational qualifications, regardless of 'real world' experience, and I am more likely to be able to choose my career direction with a degree, whereas a technologist diploma gets you stuck at a certain level and type of work. :P
Mind you, the
doctors are moving out of this city because they can't make ends meet, so maybe I'm doing OK. :D
You're okay Duje, no matter what.
Oh boy! The irresistible force and the unmovable object meet. I think I'll retire to my bomb shelter. :mrgreen:
Now we just need a perpetual motion machine, and we'll be set.
Mello, if the goal of the modern educational system (mind, I'm going to a private school, so things may be a tad different) is to indoctrinate, then it's not succeeding in that goal, either. Granted, the school demands obedience insofar as a lack of adherence to the student handbook results in penalization. But when it comes to the wider "matrix," as you put it, most of the kids don't need a school to indoctrinate them. They already have obscenely rich parents who desperately don't want to see any change in society, so they can keep their money and their kids can get it afterwards. For the minority who aren't in love with the status quo, however, Tampa Prep's environment is generally open and encouraging.
Yes, we have the rigid structures of subjects and class periods. And (I insist) there's a lack of intelligence in running some aspects of the school, so we end up with a severely flawed system of education. But I know a few people on the Tampa Prep board of directors, including its chairman, and those people have intentions that are uniformly good. And the brand new head of school has intentions that are uniformly good. And so do the overwhelming majority of teachers. And even a couple of the kids do (;)).
I can't judge if public schools are evil or just incompetent. I was only part of that system from Kindergarten to sixth grade. For Kindergarten and first grade, I went to the local elementary school. I have vague memories from that time, but not enough to judge if the education was insidious. Then, for second and half of third grade, we moved away to Vancouver, Washington, where I went to a public school, and where I again only recollect vague things.
Then, over winter, we moved back to Tampa. I went to school. Skipped a grade into fourth. The dear vice-principle, a woman who resembled an over-boiled cabbage, was vehemently against it, and when she finally acquiesced after my parents ignored her and went to the principle directly, her retort was, "Well, we'll have to keep a close eye on him."
So, then I also got into the academically gifted program within a month, because the AGP teacher, who knew me back from first grade when I was also in the program, saw me standing in the parking lot and basically said, "what the hell are you doing taking the normal classes?" Two interesting things: 1. In first grade, I was allowed to call it the gifted program. When I came back, that was politically incorrect, and the mysterious abbreviation "AGP" had to be used in its place. 2. The vice principle always smiled nervously and painfully broadly whenever she encountered me, and she avoided my mother altogether.
Fourth and fifth grade rolled along merrily, because the gifted program teacher was an absolutely amazing woman. She taught us Algebra in fourth and fifth grade. It was ridiculous. Then came sixth grade. First of all, overcrowding in the middle schools meant that my sixth grade class was one of a few that had classes in a different elementary school. Second, it sucked. My education that year was the mental equivalent of picking my nose. I learned nothing. My parents were livid. And from then on, I went to a private school.
The subtler forms of indoctrination really don't work at that age, I think. I guess they got the "obedience" thing down pretty well, or at least that's how it looked; I have always behaved in class, since I figure having to spend time in school not even pretending to learn would be completely pointless.
That puts me in a position where I can see how severely flawed the educational system is, but I cannot say that it's intentionally so.
P.S. anon1mat0, you posted while I was typing. My tuition = $17,000 per year out of my parents' collective pocket.
Quote from: Alpaca on September 02, 2007, 03:24:15 PM
Then, over winter, we moved back to Tampa. I went to school. Skipped a grade into fourth. The dear vice-principle, a woman who resembled an over-boiled cabbage, was vehemently against it, and when she finally acquiesced after my parents ignored her and went to the principle directly, her retort was, "Well, we'll have to keep a close eye on him."
I can't speak for the States but that's the nub of the difference between State and Private education in the UK. Some (emphasise some) state sector teachers view education as an instrument of social equalisation, rather than an attempt to get each child to attain the best of which they are capable. Such teachers don't get employed in the private sector.
On the social control thing I suspect both State and Private sector teachers are smart enough not to teach pupils to question authority in all its forms until the final year.
I really think that many people have a very false idea of the influence that environment has on developing attitudes, propensities, and character. Partly because the 'politically correct' model of the human mind insists it's 100%.
It's not even 50%. And the 'environment' that does have an effect is absolutely not controlled in any way by any 'authority'. That includes parents, government, schools and media. None of those have any measurable net effect on the development of people. Except in two very simple ways.
1. Any of those 'authorities' can, and sadly (sometimes/often) do, damage a person, by abuse, neglect, etc.
2. In varying ways, each can 'provide' or affect the make-up of the 'peer group' that universally for all humans is responsible for the mental development not provided by genetics (~50%) or chance (~30%).
Steven Pinker explains it very cogently in The Blank Slate (and provides in excess of 50 pages of citations to the reasearch).
So however much the Prussians thought they were achieving, however much any Americans thought they could achieve, what an 'education system' can do is provide, or fail to provide, a good education.
I can only speak for the public schools in my state, but they don't really mean to hurt people. They have certain state and national guidelines they have to follow, and I rather think that most were never class room teachers, since they never manage to do things in a sensible manner. They seem to be very ignorant of class room reality.
Although, I do think they over emphasize certain things. The district I attended put a lot of money into technology (there were enough laptops for almost all 2,800 student at my high school) and scads more into sports (we had the best pool for a hundred miles, and they're apparently planning a multi-million dollar stadium).
Private school don't seem to be much better. The private Catholic and Christian schools around here are ridden with scandals, drugs, and racism, and the kids I knew/know that attended those schools don't seem any better off academically for it.
Are you implying that private schools only exist to make sure your kids hang out with the *right* crowd? ;)
:irony:
Seriously though, I would think that in order to better target education to children (according to their talents/abilities) you would need either a very big or a very small scale.
Oh, not at all, Zono. Not at all. :mrgreen:
How would the large scale work?
Private schools don't need to be religious to be drug-infested. Mine's secular. Instead of being full of religious fanatics who are also rich, it's full of rich kids who are intent on proving it in every way they can.
Quote from: Kanaloa the Squidly on September 03, 2007, 03:06:29 AM
How would the large scale work?
Close to how an university works (and possibly of the same size). Given that it doesn't make economic sense to have one teacher per student, you would need to qualify each student in each subject according to their ability/potential/will. That way the kids that are good doing math will be in the correct level with kids that more or less learn at their rate. If that same kid hates literature he would only go to the basic or mandatory levels (if any). If a kid does poorly in a specific subject then he is held back
only in that subject while he keeps going on the others. In the end in order to graduate you would need certain core subjects (knowing how to read, write, basic civics, everyday math, etc) and the rest would shorten your stay in college.
Ah, that makes sense.
'Paca, we don't have a non-religious private school around here that I know of, actually. So I was speaking from my expirence. But I understand what you mean.