The Current State of the American Education System.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

Another thing I think they should change at the college level is to allow students to get a different degree that specifically focuses on what they want to learn - instead of the old idea of being "well rounded" (ie forcing them to take lots of other classes so the school can make more money.) In other words where they could take just what is needed to work in the field they want to work in. Maybe this would be a good idea even at the high school level, too.quote>

Pretty sure I agree, so long as we are talking about the same thing.  I think that minimum requirements in areas "completely" outside your major should not be required.  My degree is in Zoology and I remember being frustrated that I was required to take classes in Art, Language (both English and foreign), History (excl. History of Science), or Basket Weaving (okay, that last one didn't happen).

However, that does not dismiss inter-disciplinary studies that can help you in your field, or are simply things "good to know" for your chosen profession.  For example, Mathematics and Chemistry, some Anthropology, Physics, and a little Computer Science are helpful, even necessary, in my field.  And were I to have focused on, say, Zoogeography or Ecology, it would still be in my best interest to understand derivatives, statistics, and biophysics, for example.

Barbarossaquote>

There are always the technical schools. only 2 years for associates degree

Auto Repair

Heating &AC systems

Plumbing

Electronics

Information systems

Nursing & Hospitol workers

those  schools focus on the specific carrer paths for those industries,and a lot of  bigger technical schools offer all of those.

There are some classes in languages and history but  a lot less then in a 4 year school ( probably required

for the tech schools to give degrees )

[MattShizzle 11]

My Degree is in Psychology and I wouldn't have missed the majority of non-Psych classes I had to take. Also would have been a lot easier on the pocketbook.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Only in the US, though, from my experience.  Most other developed countries do not waste the time because unrelated topics should have been (and were) covered in pre-university schooling.  It seems common sense that a college student should know how to read, write, perform foundational math, understand scientific principles, and have a basic understanding of the liberal arts, etc.  Just one of the many deficiencies in American education, IMO.quote>

It's not entirely the same thing, though. High school English is far more general than, say, Irish Literary Revival (course I'm currently taking). The college classes are also smaller, and full more of people at least somewhat interested in the topic at hand rather than mostly just people who'd rather be playing hookey and are occasionally going to disrupt the class and cause trouble. All the time in high school class would have to stop so some troublemaker could be disciplined. Never once in college have I seen such a thing happen. It's an environment far more conducive to actually learning something. Because, you know, all the idiots causing trouble didn't go to college.

On the math front, I'll say one thing: calculus is not "foundational math", and most kids don't take it in high school.

As for science, you really can't do chemistry properly in high school anymore because OSHA regulations forbid them from letting the kids use bunsen burners, or doing anything in "the hood", so you can't really do any actual experiments. Indeed, a lot of the kids in a high school chemistry class aren't mature/responsible enough to handle such things. In college chem lab, it's a different story. Physics labs don't involve things so "dangerous" but many of the ones dealing with electromagnetism or optics involve fancy expensive equipment no public high school is going to be affording.

As for liberal arts... hah. Public school will teach you to fingerpaint and play a kazoo, but nothing serious about actual technique, style, and history of the arts. Music and Art are classes to play in, not learn.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: Duke87 As for science, you really can't do chemistry properly in high school anymore because OSHA regulations forbid them from letting the kids use bunsen burners, or doing anything in "the hood", so you can't really do any actual experiments. Indeed, a lot of the kids in a high school chemistry class aren't mature/responsible enough to handle such things. In college chem lab, it's a different story. Physics labs don't involve things so "dangerous" but many of the ones dealing with electromagnetism or optics involve fancy expensive equipment no public high school is going to be affording.

quote>

We managed to have quite good chemisty and physics in high school thank you very much.

The uni corse i do spends about 90% of the time, i think, doing stuff directly related to the course i'm doing, and even then the electives you take can be related to the course.

[fukuda 351]

As for science, you really can't do chemistry properly in high school anymore because OSHA regulations forbid them from letting the kids use bunsen burners, or doing anything in "the hood", so you can't really do any actual experiments. Indeed, a lot of the kids in a high school chemistry class aren't mature/responsible enough to handle such things.quote>

High school teens are perfectly "mature" to handle silly bunsen burners, as first year college students are. I've never seen or heard about any serious "accident" involving bunsen burners in any of our labs, the most serious thing I've seen or heard about is getting some of your body hair burnt, especially in young men's hands. The fume hood, if properly isolated (and that's the lab teacher's job), is as dangerous as the bunsen burners...

[Z77 3]

Hmm...didn't realize that the education system was that different throughout the country. I know that in my HS at least, they made sure that we were ready for college and had an equal footing, if not better, than other students from other HS. And in my current college, we are only required to take courses that will help us in our career course. I ADMIT...there are a couple of courses i'll need to take that i really dont know why i am, Like my current math class (i took it 3 times in HS)(well not the same HS class, but we're learning what i learned during 3 different HS classes). But then again i can see why its required. To catch up students. There are students in my math class that have never gone a day without calculators, and they cant even do mental math! Im just glad that my HS required no calculators for at least a 2 year period (not all in a row, like none for a semester, then the semester after, ect.) all i know is that im just about tired of them complaning about it. i mean good lord! you can do SYNTHETIC DIVISION WITHOUT A CALCULATOR! -End of Rant-

[MattShizzle 11]

In a way it makes sense if they were always allowed to use them - as it's hard to think of a work situation where one would need to do math and not have a calculator or computer available.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: fukuda

High school teens are perfectly "mature" to handle silly bunsen burners, as first year college students are. I've never seen or heard about any serious "accident" involving bunsen burners in any of our labs, the most serious thing I've seen or heard about is getting some of your body hair burnt, especially in young men's hands. The fume hood, if properly isolated (and that's the lab teacher's job), is as dangerous as the bunsen burners...quote>

Remember that this is the same country where our fireworks have huge warning labels on them saying "CAUTION: EMITS SHOWERS OF SPARKS". 

Fact of the matter is that you very much can hurt yourself with a bunsen burner if you're being stupid about it (which, believe me, some kids in high school here definitely would be...), and the instant that happened the kids parents would sue the school and win millions of dollars.

So it becomes an unacceptable liability. Because, you know, the twisted logic we run on is that it's never the idiot's fault for hurting themself, it's someone else's fault for letting them.

[MattShizzle 11]

Yeah the warning labels can shock you when you realize it's there because at one time someone likely did what the label says not to do - like ironing their clothes while wearing them, driving with one of those windshield covers still on, or stopping a chainsaw with their hands:

http://www.bored.com/crazywarnings/

If there wasn't a warning label, how many of you would really be thinking "you know, I wonder what Drano tastes like?"

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

Yeah the warning labels can shock you when you realize it's there because at one time someone likely did what the label says not to do - like ironing their clothes while wearing them, driving with one of those windshield covers still on, or stopping a chainsaw with their hands:

http://www.bored.com/crazywarnings/

If there wasn't a warning label, how many of you would really be thinking "you know, I wonder what Drano tastes like?"quote>

I liked this one

Fix-a-Flat

WARNING: Do not weld can to rim.

That has to be one of those that someone did.

[MattShizzle 11]

I like the one on the Superman costume that says wearing it does not enable you to fly.

[sneakeypete 16]

I don't like what it makes your country out to be...

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: Z77

But its the goal of High schools to make sure every student is on an even playing field that way they aren't working their tooshes off trying to take classes in college that they didnt in high school. quote>

I guess that is a good thing to do -- avoid having to take classes you were supposed to take beforehand. Seems logical .

Because (not trying to offend) high school kids are, well, still kids. They are still immature and they dont know what is the right thing to do. They still need guidance (and honestly i think thats why my old high school has been failing federal standards since bush enacted that NCLB..so for 8 years its been failing. Too much extra classes, not enough core classes). quote>

I would extend that point to others besides high-schoolers. A lot of people, of many ages but mainly youth, could benefit from guidance. After all, the more information people have (in this case others' experience), the better their decisions are in the end.

On your second point, I'm not sure if not enough core classes is the problem at that school, but a diversity of extra choices can't do harm. It helps people to further their interests, and that is a big point in a good education system.

once you turn 18 and head off to college, then you may do whatever you want to do....as long as its LEGAL. (i mean you can do illegal stuff..what ever floats your boat. But thats YOUR fault.. )

quote>

So, if they do legal stuff it's not their fault?

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

It seems common sense that a college student should know how to read, write, perform foundational math, understand scientific principles, and have a basic understanding of the liberal arts, etc.  Just one of the many deficiencies in American education, IMO.quote>

It would seem sensible. After all, if the state has kept them in the grip of schools for 13 years, they should know how to do necessary math and science, of course assuming they are running a real education system.

Originally posted by: Duke87

The college classes are also smaller, and full more of people at least somewhat interested in the topic at hand rather than mostly just people who'd rather be playing hookey and are occasionally going to disrupt the class and cause trouble. All the time in high school class would have to stop so some troublemaker could be disciplined. Never once in college have I seen such a thing happen. It's an environment far more conducive to actually learning something. Because, you know, all the idiots causing trouble didn't go to college.

quote>

In other words, the learning environment is better because those who do not want to be there (and consequently causing trouble) are not forced to be there, leaving the ones there who want to be there. This is the basic principle behind my argument of decompulsorization of school enrollment.

As for science, you really can't do chemistry properly in high school anymore because OSHA regulations forbid them from letting the kids use bunsen burners, or doing anything in "the hood", so you can't really do any actual experiments.quote>

How ironic. The very ageism that forces the kids to be there are preventing them from learning anything while they're there. Why is it that no one in the US government can think rationally?

Originally posted by: Z77

There are students in my math class that have never gone a day without calculators, and they cant even do mental math! Im just glad that my HS required no calculators for at least a 2 year period (not all in a row, like none for a semester, then the semester after, ect.) all i know is that im just about tired of them complaning about it. i mean good lord! you can do SYNTHETIC DIVISION WITHOUT A CALCULATOR!quote>

I can't speak for everyone, but I can do mental math and do math on paper, and I also use a calculator quite often for reasons of convenience (and I did go to a school which permitted use of calculators). It is a matter of having the personal will to learn something so the student can do it mentally.

I also believe that the reason that some or all of the students are complaining is that it is very time-consuming to do 20 or 30 problems of division without calculators. Really, an ordinary person is willing to do 5-10 division problems manually, but 30 is just overkill.

[saltandsauce 0]

the reason school ages are raised are to keep the unemployment figures down and keep the badly brought up brats off the streets during the day. and this is why school will be compulsory

[Easy Bakes 253]

Some area Schools considering dropping class rankings.

http://scntx.com/articles/2009/11/28/southlake_times/news/44.txt

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[fukuda 351]

There's a trend in colleges and higher education centers to just mass-produce "technicians" of very restricted fields, looks like there's only demand for mind-manufactured students.

This is seriously endangering multidisciplinary fields of study, fields with huge potential but usually hindered by the division and closed-mindedness of college departments and research institutes. When I contacted my current supervising teacher, who is a physicist in the physics faculty, he was puzzled by the fact that a student from the physiology and biochemistry department would ever want to work under him...

Fields of study like biophysics, systems theory or climatology for instance require people with a rather diverse set of backgrounds: physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers, mathematicians and philosophers if possible. Yet there are almost no other students than physicists, because all the other ones don't even have the required level of maths, physics, chemistry of even friggin basic science thanks to extremely restricted study plans.

There is no way someone can have a basic idea of how the world works as a basis for serious research of any kind with extremely focused education leaving out basic fields, be it history or thermodynamics.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

No, it is entirely the same thing:  Education.  You display your ignorance of Art in your reply.quote>

College education is not "the same thing" as pre-university education in the sense that things are covered on a more advanced level and more is expected of the students.

For instance, my college physics classes employed calculus. My high school physics class did not. And could not, since nobody in it knew calculus.

Point being, the reason to demand re-teaching things in college is that there is an assumption - and not an entirely baseless one - that when they were taught in high school the subject was not covered in to sufficient degree.

Although, I will grant you, part of the problem is also that people "pump and dump" things and need to be retaught because they've forgotten. I surpised a lot of people in my freshman chemistry class with how much I already knew. All of it was stuff I had learned in chemistry in high school. And when I informed people of this, people thought it strange that I actually remembered anything from high school chemistry. It was all new to them, and they'd been taught it before!

As for "ignorance of art"... um, say what? I don't understand what you're trying to get at. What exactly am I allegedly ignorant of and in what way?

Who cares how big your class is?  I don't, because it doesn't matter.quote>

It does, actually. A small class where the teacher engages every student directly is a much better learning environment than a huge lecture hall where you can sit in the back and fall asleep and nobody will notice. You need to involve people to keep them interested, and you can't do that if the class is too big.

True, some people can stay interested and focused even in a huge lecture. But most people can not.

What I am trying to communicate to all of you "modern illiterates" is that if you want to consider yourselves to be smart, you need to get your heads out of your asses and think about what you are being taught.quote>

Ah yes. You need to think. This is why so few people actually know anything. Thinking is for nerds, after all. Cool people don't care about school.

[hamsterTK 93]

Coming from someone who made bad grades in science class, the challenging parts in chemistry had nothing to do with mixing and pourings things, but rather completing the lab worksheet. You are there to record observations, do math conversions, and fill out essay questions related to whatever concept is being covered. If you didn't pay attention in class and aren't sure how to answer the questions(like me) then you become bored, and that's when the screwing around starts. So maybe its more a matter of time management and attention span and discipline among students.

This is why chemistry, physics, and the higher math classes that are college algebra equivalent are all third rails for students who coast by doing the minimum(or me when I was 17). There is some level of independent effort required, not "IV league" education-via-osmosis.

Being that I was once the typical bad student, I do have some ideas here. One important thing is having some sort of independent interest outside of school that motivates you to learn certain subjects. Unfortunately its hard to figure ways of pushing that upon students. I don't really know.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

the reason school ages are raised are to keep the unemployment figures down and keep the badly brought up brats off the streets during the day. and this is why school will be compulsory

quote>

It is perverted and frankly sickening to hear people such as yourself justify forced schooling, the most systematic violation of human liberty ever designed, by the manipulation of economic statistics. Statistics serve people, not the other way round.

And why do you say "will be compulsory"? Isn't school attendance already forced in most places?

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

No, it is entirely the same thing:  Education.  You display your ignorance of Art in your reply.

quote>

Not all education is the same. Taking courses on art, mathematics, literature, and chemistry, for instance, would all fall under the education umbrella. Are they entirely the same thing? No.

Originally posted by: Duke87

[To reply to the post Barbarossa referenced ]

Music and Art are classes to play in, not learn.

quote>

I somewhat get your meaning with that statement; however, one can play and learn at the same time. They are not mutually incompatible.

Who cares how big your class is?  I don't, because it doesn't matter.quote>

Most people do care, because the smaller the class size, the more time the teacher has to teach the individual students.

What I am trying to communicate to all of you "modern illiterates" is that if you want to consider yourselves to be smart, you need to get your heads out of your asses and think about what you are being taught.

Art is important, history is important, basic scientific principles are important, current politics is important.  Go to school for what you know and what you are interested in, not for what you are told is right.  They know nothing, only you do.

Standardized testing is an insult directly aimed at you!  Trivia questions are not educational, and most of your teachers are worried more about their jobs than they are about you!  Learn the concepts, learn the exceptions, and learn how to promote yourselves in a hostile work environment.quote>

I will take that as an endorsement of self-education, which is a good thing .

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I somewhat get your meaning with that statement; however, one can play and learn at the same time. They are not mutually incompatible.quote>

True, but what does a kid learn by smearing fingerpaint on paper or singing while the teacher plays the piano? Not much, really. It's not about education, it's about providing kids with something stimulating.

Not a bad thing, necessarily. Kids do need breaks. They can't just sit in class doing educational things all day. They get bored. This is invaluable at the elementary level, although I would question its necessity in middle or high school.

Gym (PE) is somehwat similar, except that everyone needs exercise and so there is a good reason for keeping it around even for the teens and preteens.

These classes do serve a purpose, yes, but they aren't about teaching kids anything. Music class does not teach you to appreciate music. Art class does not teach you to appreciate art. These classes are about creativity, not education. To actually learn about art, you need to study it, not make it. And that's isn't done before college.

Nevertheless, useful things can be learned from Art/Music classes. I fulfilled my art requirement in high school by taking a drafting class. Because of that, I know how to use AutoCAD. For an engineer, that's a useful skill!

Of course, if I'd taken "Drawing & Painting" instead, I would have gained nothing from it except credits necessary to graduate. So, it can go either way.

I will take that as an endorsement of self-education, which is a good thing .

quote>

The problem with self-education is that there are some things which are very difficult to properly teach yourself. Having someone who already knows show you how makes things much easier.

Although, granted, you run into trouble when you start trying to "teach" matters that are entirely subjective.

[hamsterTK 93]

I think one function of electives is the allow students to learn about a subject of their choice. This might motivate them in their other classes that are applicable to their interests. Not so much talking about elementary school art or music classes, but rather academic electives taken at the high school level.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I somewhat get your meaning with that statement; however, one can play and learn at the same time. They are not mutually incompatible.quote>

True, but what does a kid learn by smearing fingerpaint on paper or singing while the teacher plays the piano? Not much, really. It's not about education, it's about providing kids with something stimulating. quote>

Well, when a kid smears fingerpaint on paper, he is learning a basic form of art, and when kids sing while a teacher plays the piano, they are learning singing. Whether these things are of any value or not is another debate entirely.

I will take that as an endorsement of self-education, which is a good thing .

quote>

The problem with self-education is that there are some things which are very difficult to properly teach yourself. Having someone who already knows show you how makes things much easier.

quote>

Yes, there are some things that are difficult for people to teach themselves. That is why teachers exist. On the other hand, there are many things which a person can teach themselves quite well.

Although, granted, you run into trouble when you start trying to "teach" matters that are entirely subjective.

quote>

Definently.

[fukuda 351]

True, but what does a kid learn by smearing fingerpaint on paper or singing while the teacher plays the piano? Not much, really. It's not about education, it's about providing kids with something stimulating.quote>

Ha? Really? There's more to education than most people think, what kids learn by smearing fingerpaint on paper is psycho and sensorimotor coordination. And seeing the vomit-inducing hadwriting skills I see everyday I just wish they'd spent more hours fingerpainting.. or just doing art or calligraphy..

These classes do serve a purpose, yes, but they aren't about teaching kids anything. Music class does not teach you to appreciate music. Art class does not teach you to appreciate art. These classes are about creativity, not education. To actually learn about art, you need to study it, not make it. And that's isn't done before college. quote>

Art classes? Most students also lack any understanding of spatial representation (which is by the way a basic aspect of intelligence) and fail at grasping several concepts of advanced calculus or linear algebra, needless to say that their drawing is cringe-inducing aswell. Abstract art and trying to understand and associate the concepts underlying (or just creating them) also makes your associative brain regions work as crazy while remodelling parts of your thougts. Teaching students how to play an instrument also requires them to develop coordination skills, but way higher than the previous ones. Regular potentiation of motor coordination circuits (caudate, putamen, cerebellum..) also improves overall reflex response, motricity and helps with delicate tasks, like manipulation of lab material. Same goes for PE classes by the way.

It obviosuly will be useless if you ignored it or just did the bare minimum to pass, like everything else.

[morriswalters 16]

Schools in America are badly broken, and Americans are twisted about what we want schools to do.  Are schools baby sitters, are they there to teach politics, religion?  People can't seem to make up their minds, so people keep trying to make them everything to everybody.  They don't do anything well as a result.

Myself I believe that schools need to do a few things really well and other things not at all.  As an example no child should ever come out of elementary schools not having basic life skills.  Starting with the three R's.  Nothing fancy just teach them reading, writing and  arithmetic.  Basic civics,and science.  Teach them how to learn.  The one thing I know from personal experience is teaching a child the discipline needed to study successfully is where most parents fail.  Perhaps kids should should have an evening study hall near there home

Give them a safe place to play, and make them play. No electronics allowed.  Expose them to art and music.  Let all kids come out of school with a shared common experience.  No history, no social studies.  Let the parents have those young years without competition to teach their kids their values. Get them out of elementary school with the skills to do everything else.  If they get to ten or eleven and have those skills down then they will be able to learn everything else they need.  Use this as a starting point, kick it , abuse it , but think about it.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I just cant belive there is no common sense

Texas approves renaming slave trade as "Atlantic triangular trade"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=63935


 

[fukuda 351]

Next thing to do: rewrite the Civil War. Oh wait...

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

I just cant belive there is no common sense

Texas approves renaming slave trade as "Atlantic triangular trade"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=63935

 quote>

"Atlantic triangular trade" is actually commonly used in historical context.. it refers to the entire trade network in place at the time, where slave ships would leave from Europe with goods, trade them in Africa for slaves, head over to the New World where they trade the slaves for cotton and spices, and then head back to Europe. "Slave trade" really only refers to one part of that. Not to mention there was also a slave trade amongst the African kingdoms.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, technical accuracy aside, "slave trade" is common parlance. Thus, removing the term comes across sounding like an attempt to minimize that aspect of it which is usually seen as worthy of emphasis, naturally raising a few eyebrows.

Now, seeing as the change is techincally correct, I'm inclined to think too much is being read into it...

...however, that conclusion can't really be drawn without knowing the context in which the terms are used. One word or phrase isn't really telling. Gotta read at least the whole paragraph. Ideally, the whole chapter.