Obama calls for overhaul of education system

D

dmaul1114

Banned
In keeping another campaign promise, Obama today pushed again for tougher standards for students and for a merit based system that can force out bad teachers.

:applause:

It will be a tough battle, and who knows how it will turn out, but props to him for sticking to his guns and being willing to take on the teacher's unions. It's a change but if done right it can be a good thing for teachers. Work hard, earn more money. Slack off and you don't deserve the job and should be able to get fired just like you would for substandard work in other fields.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/obama-calls-for-overhaul-of-education-system/

Obama Calls for Overhaul of Education System
By Jeff Zeleny

President Obama said Tuesday that the nation must overhaul its education system and dramatically decrease the drop-out rate among students to remain competitive in the global economy.

In an address to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Obama issued a challenge to states to increase the quality of reading and math instruction to keep American students at pace with other countries. It was the first major education speech Mr. Obama delivered since taking office seven weeks ago.

“It is time to give all Americans a complete and competitive education from the cradle up through a career,” Mr. Obama said. “We have accepted failure for too long – enough. America’s entire education system must once more be the envy of the world.”

The president challenged teachers unions, renewing his support for a merit-based system of payment. He also said adult Americans needed to take responsibility for improving their own education, in addition to improve the education of their children.

“The time for finger-pointing is over. The time for holding ourselves accountable is here,” Mr. Obama said. “What’s required is not simply new investments, but new reforms. It is time to expect more from our students.”

The address on Tuesday was the first step in laying out the president’s agenda to improve American schools, officials said, with more specifics to be outlined in the coming weeks to Congress. Mr. Obama set a goal of the United States having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020.

“Let there be no doubt,” Mr. Obama said, “the future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens – and my fellow Americans, we have everything we need to be that nation.”

Mr. Obama called for continued funding of charter schools, which his administration refers to as “laboratories of innovation.” Teachers’ unions oppose the schools, saying they take away funding for public schools. The president also challenged unions, a reliable Democratic constituency, by promoting a merit-based system of payment for teachers, an idea he pledged to support during the campaign.

“It means treating teachers like the professionals they are while also holding them more accountable,” Mr. Obama said. “New teachers will be mentored by experienced ones. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools.”
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is it better to have fewer dropouts without any basic skills or more dropouts in a system that generates skilled workers?[/QUOTE]

The ideal is of course somewhere in the middle.

But drop outs are a bad thing for society. Many blue collar and trade jobs won't even hire people without degrees. Just the lowest level stuff--the shit jobs that hire illegals, fast food etc.

So you want to minimize as much as possible, without pushing through people who didn't really earn the diploma/GED.

So that's a too fold process of 1) improving the education system, 2) finding better ways to keep kids interested and from getting behind. But some will always fall through the cracks or just not be cut out for it.
 
Such a policy may try to equal things out between 8-3PM, it neglects the kind of substantial causes of stratification and poor educational attainment that happen after 3PM.

School is an institution, education is a process. This policy is targeted at schools, not education.
 
Very true. But there's only so much the government has control of. We can also do more to help poor communities etc. which would help for sure. But there's not much to be done to make parents take an active role in their kids education.

Even in middle and upper class families there are plenty of parents "too busy" to be bothered with checking their kids home work etc.

But at the least they can fix the broken school system so at least kids are getting a good education from 8-3 and have a better chance to succeed.

Government can fix schools, and relatively quickly. They can't fix society. No amount of welfare programs etc. are going to wipe out inequality or make parents (regardless of income) give a crap.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

School is an institution, education is a process. This policy is targeted at schools, not education.[/QUOTE]

well said. i agree 100%
 
We need schools to hire better teachers. I remember sitting through lectures in high school bored out of my mind. The teacher just talked, occasionally asked a question, then rinse and repeat. I'm not saying education has to be exciting but more hands-on couldn't hurt.
 
Yes we do need better teachers.

However, I have still yet to be convinced, by anyone, that our educational system is guaranteed to give us better returns just through spending more. There really is not anything money can buy that will, for certain, pump out more educated youngins.

I think of it kind of like an auto mechanic. If I take my car in to get fixed, and immediately give the mechanic several times more money than he is going to need to fix the problem and I say "Ok, this money is to make my car run better than it ever has".... What's likely going to happen? Nothing. He might do a couple extra things he normally wouldn't have, but it's ultimately a waste of money.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yes we do need better teachers.

However, I have still yet to be convinced, by anyone, that our educational system is guaranteed to give us better returns just through spending more. There really is not anything money can buy that will, for certain, pump out more educated youngins.
[/QUOTE]

Thrust, read the fucking article.

The plan isn't to just spend more money. The main part of Obama's idea is to have higher standards for students, and to move to a merit based system where teachers are rewarded for doing a great job and can be fired if they don't meet standards.

More money is needed in some areas where good teachers are underpaid and leave and go elsewhere, where schools are falling apart and/or lacking in modern technology, new textbooks etc. But the other changes are the key to reforming the education system.

And Myke is 100% right that it will be of limited success if we can't get parents to care more and encourage their kids to study etc. in afterschool ours. But again there's not a lot the government can do about that beyond continuing to do everything they can to fix the economy and help the poor. But there will always be parents of every class who just don't give a shit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Such a policy may try to equal things out between 8-3PM, it neglects the kind of substantial causes of stratification and poor educational attainment that happen after 3PM.

School is an institution, education is a process. This policy is targeted at schools, not education.[/quote]

Agreed here.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Very true. But there's only so much the government has control of. We can also do more to help poor communities etc. which would help for sure. But there's not much to be done to make parents take an active role in their kids education.

Even in middle and upper class families there are plenty of parents "too busy" to be bothered with checking their kids home work etc.

But at the least they can fix the broken school system so at least kids are getting a good education from 8-3 and have a better chance to succeed.

Government can fix schools, and relatively quickly. They can't fix society. No amount of welfare programs etc. are going to wipe out inequality or make parents (regardless of income) give a crap.[/quote]

I think it could be spent that if parents are "too busy" that they could easily obtain an online mentor or afterschool program maybe sponsored by the local colleges, say take in soon to be new Teachers that could give a crap.



I think ultimately it comes down to making kids give a crap about school, and a good portion of that comes from the parents.

School could be perfect and we'll still get drop-outs.

Parents should be responsible. Teachers can be the best, but if a kid has no interest, who really is going to make him/her learn anything?


Thinking of this towards other countries, most others regard education very closely to family honor and respect. Like India and China, they are becoming leaders in growing numbers of more intelligent proffesional workers.

And here in the US.... if you drop out... what, you get laughed at and have to work at McDonalds, parents support them, no punishment or recourse.

I think if one doesn't graduate with above passing, Parents should be held responsible for paying in more to the system to support schools so that their kids don't weigh down the good Teachers that the school may have.
 
I agree it's a HUGE problem. I just don't see much what the government can do to make society as a whole value education to the extent other countries do.

Beyond parents not caring, many people turn their noses up at education. Look at all the threads we've had on here with people bashing college etc. I go home to WV and I have lots of friends and relatives who teaze about being in school at 30 finishing a Ph D (despite that I make more than them while going to school).

Compare that with a place like Taiwan where huge percentages of people have Master's degrees and Ph Ds.

We need a complete culutural turn around that believes in the value of education. Not sure what the government can do to make that happen, other than have policies like this and people like Obama talk about the value of education as often as possible.

Obama could be a good role model in that extend, as a bi-racial man from humble beginnings who got a great education and ended up on top.
 
Annette Lareau's research strongly disagrees with the "Americans don't value education" hypothesis. Instead, she argues that class structures recreate themselves in the US because lesser-educated parents aren't armed with the time, knowledge, and skills to reinforce proper methods of study. They don't attend PTA meetings, parent-teacher meetings; they can't help with reading or math homework when their own literacy and math understanding is poor.

And that's at an elementary through high school level. Don't focus so much on post grad education when the problems are at a fundamental level that (most) all children experience. Not just the tiny fraction that continue beyond undergraduate college.
 
Eh, i'd say it's a little of both, some people really don't value education, some are like myke said and just don't know any better. Many people in the US respect those with hard manual labor jobs more than those who got an education so they could have a real career. In many people's minds, you aren't working hard unless you're breaking your back while doing it.

Frankly, if a child's parents don't value education, the child probably won't either.
 
Fair enough. So then it seems the problem lies with "lesser-educated parents" and the easiest way the government can fix that is to do what they can to improve schools and and let fewer kids fall through the cracks so that future generations have fewer and fewer "lesser-educated parents."

There's not a lot that I see that they can do in the present beyond the types of welfare programs, adult education programs etc. that have long been offered in disadvantaged communities. Maybe expand them, promote them more to get more people to take advantage of them etc.

And note that I was talking about college education above as well, not just post-graduate. Remember all the people here saying that college is a rip off etc? There's clearly a lack of value for education in this country. It may not be the main problem, but it is a problem.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We need a complete culutural turn around that believes in the value of education.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. Maybe it can start with you.
 
We need to make it against the law to be a shitty parent.

Johnny gets a "C". Probation for the parents.

Johnny gets a "F". Six months prison for the parents.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I agree with this. Maybe it can start with you.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I do my part promoting the value of education. I do as much as I can to defend it's value when it's bashed, instill in my students a desire for life long learning etc.

But it will take societal wide efforts led by the government to improve and promote education, keep more kids in schools etc., so that attitudes change over generations.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hey, I do my part promoting the value of education. I do as much as I can to defend it's value when it's bashed, instill in my students a desire for life long learning etc.

But it will take societal wide efforts led by the government to improve and promote education, keep more kids in schools etc., so that attitudes change over generations.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, it looks like you've completely missed my point...
 
in japan, someone smart is admired and popular

in america, someone smart is called a nerd and unpopular


japan's education> america's education
 
[quote name='rickonker']Unfortunately, it looks like you've completely missed my point...[/QUOTE]

Probably as most of your posts tend to not have one, or to have some absurb point not worth paying heed to.
 
Y'see, the kids, they listen to the rap music, which gives them the brain damage. With their hippin' and their hoppin', and their bippin', and their boppin'... so they don't know what the jazz is all about! You see, Jazz is like a Jello Pudding pop — no! Actually, it's more like Kodak film — no! Actually, jazz is like the new Coke; it'll be around forever! Heh heh heh...
 
[quote name='billyrox']in japan, someone smart is admired and popular

in america, someone smart is called a nerd and unpopular


japan's education> america's education[/quote]
That's because in America, we value athletic ability over intelligence. You may be a nuclear physicist, but if you can't throw/catch, we don't care.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']That's because in America, we value athletic ability over intelligence. You may be a nuclear physicist, but if you can't throw/catch, we don't care.[/QUOTE]

That's a small part of the problem--but that's more an indicator of the disease than symptom per se.

Education is devalued, scientists are looked at as nerds etc. People dote on athletes and move stars, many respect the blue collar guy breaking his back more than the person trying to solve cancer--who get's called an out of touch, rich elitist etc.

All are just symptoms of a disease of anti-intellectualism that's some how arose in the US. Where it's some how got to the point that many think having an advanced education and being successful an intellectual job is a bad think.

I think there's largely just a lot of jealously and bitterness that's arose due to the huge income inequalities we have, and the ire of many gets wrongly placed on colleges and intellectuals rather than the true offenders which are big corporations, banks etc. that keep paying executives more and more and workers less and less (in terms of salary increases over time not being anywhere near proportionate to the executives raises).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hey, I do my part promoting the value of education. I do as much as I can to defend it's value when it's bashed, instill in my students a desire for life long learning etc.

But it will take societal wide efforts led by the government to improve and promote education, keep more kids in schools etc., so that attitudes change over generations.[/QUOTE]

He was insinuating there is a difference between education and schooling. And he's right.

One can have a life-long love of learning without ever going to school.

Complacency is the problem here. You can funnel tons of people into schools, but it won't mean they learned anything or are better people because of it. If they don't love learning and love to learn, then they are just there to pay their money for a piece of paper like any other service based industry.

Now if the argument goes from being about education to being about higher paying jobs, then it's a different story - kinda.
 
It's not that I don't value education, I don't value school. I bleive that now, in the age of information, you don't need a teacher to learn. That's probably the reason why so many Americans are uninformed. They spend life associating education with boring monotonous things that they know they won't use in life, so they don't want to learn anything.

As a student in highschool right now, I think most of you aren't putting enough emphasis on what we're actually learning. Kids get to a certain age where they're smart enough to ask " Why the hell are we learning this?" and can only be given answers such as " Because you'll need it in college", and you wonder why children aren't motivated. You wonder why most of the children don't even retain it. I think the education system needs an overhaul, but it's definitely not making high school restrictions more strict. I think they should add more choice and variation to classes. I think they're just trying to get kids to be the best and the subjects they want them to be, and it just isn't EVER going to happen.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']He was insinuating there is a difference between education and schooling. And he's right.

One can have a life-long love of learning without ever going to school.
[/QUOTE]

True. But schools should be the place to each the life long love of learning. If you have good teachers, doing their jobs you'll love learning and want to continue.

School isn't necessary for a love of learning, but it's damn good facilitator IMO.

There's no better learning setting IMO for most people than to be in a class room full of peers and an instructor where you can learn by not just reading stuff (as you would with self learning) but discussing it and thinking about it critically.

Take an two equally motivated students with equal IQs and equal passion for learning. Send one to Harvard for 4 years, and the other to learn on their own in a library for 4 years. I'll be a lot of money on the person who went to Harvard having a much better, and more well rounded education than the self learner.


The problem is not the idea of school, is that our school system has problems and needs major reforms. It needs to teach basic skills AND instill a life long love of learning.
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']It's not that I don't value education, I don't value school. I bleive that now, in the age of information, you don't need a teacher to learn. That's probably the reason why so many Americans are uninformed. They spend life associating education with boring monotonous things that they know they won't use in life, so they don't want to learn anything.

As a student in highschool right now, I think most of you aren't putting enough emphasis on what we're actually learning. Kids get to a certain age where they're smart enough to ask " Why the hell are we learning this?" and can only be given answers such as " Because you'll need it in college", and you wonder why children aren't motivated. You wonder why most of the children don't even retain it. I think the education system needs an overhaul, but it's definitely not making high school restrictions more strict. I think they should add more choice and variation to classes. I think they're just trying to get kids to be the best and the subjects they want them to be, and it just isn't EVER going to happen.[/QUOTE]

That just reeks of youthful ignorance. I had a lot of the same attitude in High School.

Now I love learning about all kinds of stuff, many things I'll never use in my career etc.

I just love building knowledge, and school is a great place to get it and instill a love of learning. It forces people to learn about a wide varirety of topics and become a well rounded person with a good body of knowledge. You don't need to learn stuff because it's useful to you. You need to learn it as in an ideal world acquiring knowledge and bettering one's self would be everyone's primary goal.

That kid that self learns is only going to focus on things interesting to them. Go to school and he will be forced to learn more stuff and likely develop a broader lover of learning and knowledge building.

And as always I don't think everyone is cut out for college or being a life long learner. It's not an ideal world. Some people care abotu nothing but having a decent job and as much time to spend on their hobbies and familes as possible.

But we're talking education and it's value here. And the school system needs to give basic skills so that such people can get a decent job, but ALSO instill a life long love of learning in those so inclined so we advance as a society and have lots of people go on to "learning jobs" in research and science etc.
 
i think this unfairly discriminates against teachers working in inner cities or more difficult working environments. They already deal with a loaded deck in the first place, and to penalize them for that seems unfair. Plus especially before kids separate themselves homogeneously, it really is luck of the draw in the classroom what kids you get.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i think this unfairly discriminates against teachers working in inner cities or more difficult working environments. They already deal with a loaded deck in the first place, and to penalize them for that seems unfair. Plus especially before kids separate themselves homogeneously, it really is luck of the draw in the classroom what kids you get.[/QUOTE]

That's a fair point. How the merit system is implemented will be key. It needs to be more than just standardized test scores and other crap.

Maybe stuff like class room evaluations by students and observers. Review of lesson plans and lectures.

The real key is to find a way to measure class room performance by the teacher that doesn't get washed out by having disadvantaged students and environment. But your guess is as good as mine on how to do that.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

I just love building knowledge, and school is a great place to get it and instill a love of learning. It forces people to learn about a wide varirety of topics and become a well rounded person with a good body of knowledge. You don't need to learn stuff because it's useful to you. You need to learn it as in an ideal world acquiring knowledge and bettering one's self would be everyone's primary goal.

That kid that self learns is only going to focus on things interesting to them. Go to school and he will be forced to learn more stuff and likely develop a broader lover of learning and knowledge building.


But we're talking education and it's value here. And the school system needs to give basic skills so that such people can get a decent job, but ALSO instill a life long love of learning in those so inclined so we advance as a society and have lots of people go on to "learning jobs" in research and science etc.[/quote]

That just reeks of your bias, Mr. PhD, future professor.

School doesn't force anyone to learn anything. I've learned so much in American History because I've cared about the subject. I haven't retained anything in Chemistry or Biology, Algebra I or II. Luckily, all I have to do is pass some tests and turn in work, then it can at least look like I learned something. If you went on the street and asked people random things about chemistry, random things about geometry, etc, they probably wouldn't be able to tell you much about it. It's not because there's anything wrong with society, it's just those people outright don't give a shit about the subjects. They probably didn't then and they don't now. Why waste time and money shoving it down their throats? This is why I recommend an education system with a broader set of choices. What also sucks is that the classes that are going to be less functional in ( my ) life are the most intense.

Basic skills, eh? Algebra, Geometry, Chemistry, Biology, etc are all basic skills, definitely required in the average American life.

I'd also like to put in here my theory that at one point, school just becomes a large scale daycare center with tons of filler and BS.
 
You have to adopt the willingess to learn first. I didn't learn much about subjects I wasn't interested in while in High School either as I wasn't that engaged.

Once I got to college I had some great professors and really changed and just loved learning. And with my journalism major and sociology minor I had to take all kinds of crap--history, political science, literature courses, math courses, science courses, anthoropology, ecoomics, statistics, criminology courses,accounting, humanties, art history and down the line. I had few electives and the journalism major had them all mapped out on you as they wanted you to know a little about most everything as you never know what you'd have to report on down the road.

So I ended up loving being forced to take all those subjects as I learned all kinds of shit I never would have outside of college with a major that forced me to take them. Similarly while the comprehensive exams which are very broad and hard in my program for the Ph D sucked, I'm glad I suffered through them as I learned a ton more about criminology than I would have at other programs with easier comps or no comps. I was forced to read all the relevant research on pretty much every criminal justice topic and criminological theory to pass them, and I'm a better criminologist and teacher for it.

Point of that is your attitude may change down the road like mine did. Or it may not. Not everyone is cut out for college, and not everyone cut out for college is the type who just loves learning about anything and everything. Try not to be so opinionated and sure of yourself in your youth. I was as well, and regret it as I've changed drastically over the years. But that's the problem with this site--too many kids who think they know it all already! :D

And there's nothing wrong with people who never develop that passion for learning. I have a hard time being close friends with people who don't share my passion for learning an knowledge (regardless of their schooling pedigree) as such people just aren't as interesting to converse with. But that's just socialization. We all like to hang out with people we have a lot in common with. So there's no value judgment or inferiority implied there.

But anyway, that's why I view school as the best place to really get a love for knowledge and life long learning. There's just no where else you're pushed into learning about so much stuff, and no where else you can have large discussions with your peers and experts on the various topics than a college classroom. But of course you have to have that curiousity and love of learning or you won't get much out of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HovaEscobar']It's not that I don't value education, I don't value school. I bleive that now, in the age of information, you don't need a teacher to learn. That's probably the reason why so many Americans are uninformed. They spend life associating education with boring monotonous things that they know they won't use in life, so they don't want to learn anything.[/QUOTE]
You're wrong. You don't need a teacher to learn, you need a teacher to provide the insight of experience that cannot be found on google. I've learned more from professors over a beer than I've ever learned in a classroom and far more insight than could ever be provided by a search engine. My favorite teacher didn't teach a single thing in class. Not one damn thing. He talked about Alan Turing and how cool he was for months. But if you needed insight into the how/why, there's no one finer on the planet. But you had to go to him with questions to learn. He refused to "teach at us". His class cost me a thousand bucks, but his class alone has raised my earning power significantly.

I agreed with you once.
 
Yes, that's an oustanding example speedracer!

And it's really one of the key values of grad school, since you're working directly with professors on research or teaching assistantships etc. I've learned a ton in gradutate classes, but even more from working with professors and fellow grad students on research projects and just being in that environment where you're surrounded by tons of really smart people who are very knowledgeable on many things and experts on their particular area of study.

And I didn't realize that in high school, so hopefully Hova will try to be more open minded about it if he decided to go to college.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Probably as most of your posts tend to not have one, or to have some absurb point not worth paying heed to.[/QUOTE]

I think you're just making excuses for yourself.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I think you're just making excuses for yourself.[/QUOTE]

Nope, just didn't see any other meaning to your post. You're one of those drive by posters that seldom has anything of worth to add to a thread.

Case in point, this bumping of the Catholic thread with this wonderfully insightful post:

[quote name='rickonker']Eh.[/QUOTE]

If you want people to respond to you correctly and seriously, take some time to flesh out thoughts and opinions.

And to be fair, I was giving you some benefit of the doubt for not being either an anti-intellectual, or one of the dipshits who thinks schools are useless. So I guess that was my mistake.
 
[quote name='speedracer']You're wrong. You don't need a teacher to learn, you need a teacher to provide the insight of experience that cannot be found on google. I've learned more from professors over a beer than I've ever learned in a classroom and far more insight than could ever be provided by a search engine. My favorite teacher didn't teach a single thing in class. Not one damn thing. He talked about Alan Turing and how cool he was for months. But if you needed insight into the how/why, there's no one finer on the planet. But you had to go to him with questions to learn. He refused to "teach at us". His class cost me a thousand bucks, but his class alone has raised my earning power significantly.

[/quote]

See, I've learned so much without that insight of experience. I think I really am a different case here. Maybe others want that, I don't. I also find that entire anecdote silly.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Take an two equally motivated students with equal IQs and equal passion for learning. Send one to Harvard for 4 years, and the other to learn on their own in a library for 4 years. I'll be a lot of money on the person who went to Harvard having a much better, and more well rounded education than the self learner.[/QUOTE]

I would gladly take that bet. Let's also try something else. Let's try sending students with low IQs and no passion for learning to Harvard for 4 years, and see if they're indistinguishable from typical Harvard students after graduation.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Nope, just didn't see any other meaning to your post.[/QUOTE]

Well that's my point. Other posters did see the meaning in my post. You didn't, and when that was pointed out you started making excuses for yourself by attacking me.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You have to adopt the willingess to learn first. I didn't learn much about subjects I wasn't interested in while in High School either as I wasn't that engaged.

Once I got to college I had some great professors and really changed and just loved learning. And with my journalism major and sociology minor I had to take all kinds of crap--history, political science, literature courses, math courses, science courses, anthoropology, ecoomics, statistics, criminology courses,accounting, humanties, art history and down the line. I had few electives and the journalism major had them all mapped out on you as they wanted you to know a little about most everything as you never know what you'd have to report on down the road.

So I ended up loving being forced to take all those subjects as I learned all kinds of shit I never would have outside of college with a major that forced me to take them. Similarly while the comprehensive exams which are very broad and hard in my program for the Ph D sucked, I'm glad I suffered through them as I learned a ton more about criminology than I would have at other programs with easier comps or no comps. I was forced to read all the relevant research on pretty much every criminal justice topic and criminological theory to pass them, and I'm a better criminologist and teacher for it.

Point of that is your attitude may change down the road like mine did. Or it may not. Not everyone is cut out for college, and not everyone cut out for college is the type who just loves learning about anything and everything. Try not to be so opinionated and sure of yourself in your youth. I was as well, and regret it as I've changed drastically over the years. But that's the problem with this site--too many kids who think they know it all already! :D

And there's nothing wrong with people who never develop that passion for learning. I have a hard time being close friends with people who don't share my passion for learning an knowledge (regardless of their schooling pedigree) as such people just aren't as interesting to converse with. But that's just socialization. We all like to hang out with people we have a lot in common with. So there's no value judgment or inferiority implied there.

But anyway, that's why I view school as the best place to really get a love for knowledge and life long learning. There's just no where else you're pushed into learning about so much stuff, and no where else you can have large discussions with your peers and experts on the various topics than a college classroom. But of course you have to have that curiousity and love of learning or you won't get much out of it.[/QUOTE]

So it's nice that you love learning now, but why do you assume everyone has to go to school to get that love? Not everyone needs to have a love of learning forced on them like you did.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I would gladly take that bet. Let's also try something else. Let's try sending students with low IQs and no passion for learning to Harvard for 4 years, and see if they're indistinguishable from typical Harvard students after graduation.[/QUOTE]

You'd lose the first bet. Learning is better facilitated when there is an expert in the room to discuss the material with and to help the student understand stuff they don't grasp on their own--while the self learner gives up and moves to something else. As well as being forced to branch out and learn more stuff than you would on your own. That's just common sense.

The second is pointless. I've said many times college isn't for everyone, and never implied that everyone wiil come out at the same level.

Everyone that goes and committs themselves to learning will come out better than the started, but differences in intelligence and passion for learning and other factors will determine how much they get out of it relative to other students. Those who can't commit themselves shoudn't bother. There's no shame in learning a trade.
 
[quote name='speedracer']You're wrong. You don't need a teacher to learn, you need a teacher to provide the insight of experience that cannot be found on google. I've learned more from professors over a beer than I've ever learned in a classroom and far more insight than could ever be provided by a search engine. My favorite teacher didn't teach a single thing in class. Not one damn thing. He talked about Alan Turing and how cool he was for months. But if you needed insight into the how/why, there's no one finer on the planet. But you had to go to him with questions to learn. He refused to "teach at us". His class cost me a thousand bucks, but his class alone has raised my earning power significantly.

I agreed with you once.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dmaul1114']Yes, that's an oustanding example speedracer!

And it's really one of the key values of grad school, since you're working directly with professors on research or teaching assistantships etc. I've learned a ton in gradutate classes, but even more from working with professors and fellow grad students on research projects and just being in that environment where you're surrounded by tons of really smart people who are very knowledgeable on many things and experts on their particular area of study.

And I didn't realize that in high school, so hopefully Hova will try to be more open minded about it if he decided to go to college.[/QUOTE]

Ironically, both of you are making very good points against college here, and I don't know if you realize it. The point of college, if you go by how it's set up, is to go to class, get graded, and get a degree. But the two of you have apparently figured out that it was more important for you to just have conversations with, work with, and just generally be around smart people! Exactly!

What you're doing is like if someone said the PS3 is better than the 360 because they enjoyed Madden NFL 09 on the PS3 a lot.
 
[quote name='rickonker']So it's nice that you love learning now, but why do you assume everyone has to go to school to get that love? Not everyone needs to have a love of learning forced on them like you did.[/QUOTE]

Never said they did.

I said

1. School is the easiest place to acquire it as you're in an enviroment dedicated to learning.

2. Its the best environment in which to learn (especially college). Go to a good school and you have professors who are renowned experts on the topic they're teaching who you can turn to with questions and learn a lot from talking to and working with them. And you're surrounded by other students who can enrich your learning through discussions etc.

You learn a lot more by reading stuff, hearing lecutres related to it, being forced to think critically about it and discuss in class and office hours with the professor and other students, having to do research and write papers etc. than you do if you just read the stuff on your own without the added components of the school setting.

As myself and speedracer said, you learn a lot more just from the exposure to professors than you do from the readings etc. But of course you have to be committed and make the effort to talk to professors and not just go to lectures and never say word.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You'd lose the first bet. Learning is better facilitated when there is an expert in the room to discuss the material with and to help the student understand stuff they don't grasp on their own--while the self learner gives up and moves to something else.[/quote]

I think you've set up a false dichotomy. You're assuming a student either has to go to college, or go to a library and avoid all contact with experts/smart people.

The second is pointless. I've said many times college isn't for everyone, and never implied that everyone wiil come out at the same level.

Everyone that goes and committs themselves to learning will come out better than the started, but differences in intelligence and passion for learning and other factors will determine how much they get out of it relative to other students. Those who can't commit themselves shoudn't bother. There's no shame in learning a trade.
Click to expand...

OK, but you know that the government's official policies are geared towards sending everyone to four-year universities, right? Are you saying you disagree with those policies?
 
[quote name='rickonker'] But the two of you have apparently figured out that it was more important for you to just have conversations with, work with, and just generally be around smart people! Exactly!
[/QUOTE]

It matters:

1. Who you're around.
2. What setting it is.

College gives you a chance to be around people who are experts in their field that you don't get otherwise. And it (and especially grad school) gives you an opportunity to work directly with them in their work.

Don't go to college you aren't likely to have the opportunity to be around such people or to collaborate in their work.

Society self segrates, professors and experts in general aren't going to hang around nobodies and share their wisdom with them, much less bring in random folks with no college experience to partner with on their research etc. I have no interest in sharing my knowledge with random folks who aren't my students, or aren't criminal justice agencies that I'm working with.

Seems a pretty commonsense thing that college gives you exposure to smart people who are eager to talk with you and work with you that you don't get in regular life.

And we never said the classes aren't important. I've learned a shit ton from classes, much more about many more topics than I ever would have if I never went to college. Book learning is very important as well, and lectures can be very enlightening.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Never said they did.

I said

1. School is the easiest place to acquire it as you're in an enviroment dedicated to learning.[/quote]

And you're 100% sure that school is the easiest place for anyone to do that?

2. Its the best environment in which to learn (especially college). Go to a good school and you have professors who are renowned experts on the topic they're teaching who you can turn to with questions and learn a lot from talking to and working with them. And you're surrounded by other students who can enrich your learning through discussions etc.
Click to expand...

I agree that talking to experts and others can be very useful. But again, what makes you so sure that today's colleges are the best possible place for that?
 
[quote name='rickonker']
OK, but you know that the government's official policies are geared towards sending everyone to four-year universities, right? Are you saying you disagree with those policies?[/QUOTE]

Those policies don't exist. We try to get everyone through high school. That's crucial as it's hard to even get manual labor, unskilled jobs without a diploma in many places (especially places with illegals who'll do the work for less).

With college we try to make sure that everyone who wants to go to a four-year university can afford to do so. There's no laws trying to force people to do so, and I'd never support any such laws.

I support making it so people from low incomes who want to go to college can go to college, I support promoting and encouraging college as it's valuable. But no one should be pressured into doing so. There's no shame in learning a trade, and society needs people to do those jobs.
 
[quote name='rickonker']And you're 100% sure that school is the easiest place for anyone to do that?
[/quote]

Yes I think a good class room with a good learning environment and a good teacher is the ideal enviroment for learning. Of course there are exceptions for people with learning disabilities etc. But still people with ADHD or whatever aren't going to learn well on their own either--they just need a special type of classroom.

I agree that talking to experts and others can be very useful. But again, what makes you so sure that today's colleges are the best possible place for that?
Click to expand...

See my above post. No where else to you get access to experts in their fields who are willing to talk with you, teach you etc. Much less who are willing to partner with you in their work.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It matters:

1. Who you're around.
2. What setting it is.

College gives you a chance to be around people who are experts in their field that you don't get otherwise. And it (and especially grad school) gives you an opportunity to work directly with them in their work.

Don't go to college you aren't likely to have the opportunity to be around such people or to collaborate in their work.[/quote]

This is kind of a circular argument. A lot of experts end up in colleges because that's where the resources have been sent.

Society self segrates, professors and experts in general aren't going to hang around nobodies and share their wisdom with them, much less bring in random folks with no college experience to partner with on their research etc. I have no interest in sharing my knowledge with random folks who aren't my students, or aren't criminal justice agencies that I'm working with.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Professors I've talked to tend to take pride in sharing knowledge with all of humanity. You're telling us you don't care about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top