Obama calls for overhaul of education system

[quote name='dmaul1114']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]

Of course those policies exist. I didn't say people are forced to do so, but there is no doubt that the intention is to encourage as many people as possible, no matter who they are, to go to four year universities.

Edit: Also, you say you support "promoting and encouraging" college, but not "pressure". What is the difference exactly, in the case of a high school student, for example?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]

So if I understand you correctly, you don't believe there is any chance whatsoever that a classroom is not the best learning environment for any individual.



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.
Click to expand...

See my earlier post, again if we're talking about the college system as a whole, this becomes a circular argument.
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']See, I've learned so much without that insight of experience.[/quote]
You're learning from a world of information I can't even imagine having at my disposal when I was young. But you lack what all young people lack: honest to god experience. To the bright, experience becomes a tool that allows them to multiply their cognitive ability, much as combined arms multiplies force effectiveness in military applications.

I think I really am a different case here.
Click to expand...
Of course you are. You're different. Special. Like everyone else in a not like everyone else kind of way. *sigh*

Maybe others want that, I don't.
Click to expand...
You don't want insight or experience? You don't want another powerful tool at your disposal? Does that even make sense?

I also find that entire anecdote silly.
Click to expand...
You could stand some humility.
 
[quote name='speedracer']You're learning from a world of information I can't even imagine having at my disposal when I was young. But you lack what all young people lack: honest to god experience. To the bright, experience becomes a tool that allows them to multiply their cognitive ability, much as combined arms multiplies force effectiveness in military applications.


Of course you are. You're different. Special. Like everyone else in a not like everyone else kind of way. *sigh*


You don't want insight or experience? You don't want another powerful tool at your disposal? Does that even make sense?


You could stand some humility.[/QUOTE]

Give Hova some credit. How many high school students do you know that even think about the issues he thinks about?
 
[quote name='rickonker']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![/quote]
Though I learned quite a lot during my time as a carpenter about life, I learned very little in the way of skills that translated into monetization in a way that I needed and wanted. In a nutshell, that's what college is to me: paying for the right to question people on how best to monetize skill sets while developing those skill sets. I am getting a business degree though, so YMMV.

There's a guy at the bar I go to that's smart as hell. He answers just about every trivia question right. Every one. Yet hanging out with him hasn't gotten me shit.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Give Hova some credit. How many high school students do you know that even think about the issues he thinks about?[/QUOTE]
I respond because I do credit him. At the same time, coddling arrogance in bright youth is a recipe for disaster. Gifted kids often think the world revolves around them. In 3 years, no one will care but Mommy.

From my brief readings of some of his posts, he seems to be intellectually curious and has a general streak of rebelliousness against people that tell him things have to go this way or that. I think it's rad. But this seems like an individual for whom higher education was made for, if only so he can rebel against it. Not going because he couldn't afford it would be a waste. Not going because he thinks it has no value is just fucking stupid.
 
[quote name='speedracer']There's a guy at the bar I go to that's smart as hell. He answers just about every trivia question right. Every one. Yet hanging out with him hasn't gotten me shit.[/QUOTE]

Well if all you do is ask him trivia questions I'm not surprised. :)
 
[quote name='speedracer']I respond because I do credit him. At the same time, coddling arrogance in bright youth is a recipe for disaster. Gifted kids often think the world revolves around them. In 3 years, no one will care but Mommy.

From my brief readings of some of his posts, he seems to be intellectually curious and has a general streak of rebelliousness against people that tell him things have to go this way or that. I think it's rad. But this seems like an individual for whom higher education was made for, if only so he can rebel against it. Not going is a waste.[/QUOTE]

I read this as half-joking...like the best reason to go to college is to see how badly it's done and rebel against it. He mentioned once that college would be an issue financially so maybe going would be a waste.
 
[quote name='rickonker']This is kind of a circular argument. A lot of experts end up in colleges because that's where the resources have been sent.
[/quote]

Not really or totally. It's just a great environment for people who love teaching and learning, etc. And it's the best setting for research in most fields since from the start you can set your own research agenda and do the work you want. Vs. going to a research firm and working on the projects of more senior staff.

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?
Click to expand...

I'm happy to share, but I don't really want to talk about my work with random people at the bar, or with my non-academic friends etc. We all need a break.

But the bigger point would be is I rarely have anyone ask questions of my research etc. outside of work settings. Those driven to learn about a topic go to college and study it for the most part I guess. :D

[quote name='rickonker']
Edit: Also, you say you support "promoting and encouraging" college, but not "pressure". What is the difference exactly, in the case of a high school student, for example?[/QUOTE]

Encouragement isn't a policy or pressure. Going to college should be encouraged, but students should also be made aware that trade schools, the miliatry etc. are options. And generally they are. Recruiters from all those kinds of places came to my high school.


[quote name='rickonker']So if I understand you correctly, you don't believe there is any chance whatsoever that a classroom is not the best learning environment for any individual.
[/quote]

Unless the person has learning disorders, social awkwardness (to where they don't participate, ask questions etc.). Yes. And people with such problems are just not cut out to be college students and life long learners in most cases. With exceptions as their are brillionat recluses.

You'll learn much more supplementing your reading and self learning with exposure to a teacher/expert and having others to work with and discuss the material with. And you'll cover more topics in school than you will elsewhere just do to the nature of it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And it's the best setting for research in most fields since from the start you can set your own research agenda and do the work you want. Vs. going to a research firm and working on the projects of more senior staff.[/quote]

That's not a fair comparison. When you're a grad student you don't do all the work you want, you work under a professor.

Those driven to learn about a topic go to college and study it for the most part I guess. :D
Click to expand...

Again, this is after decades of societal pressure to go to college.

Encouragement isn't a policy or pressure. Going to college should be encouraged, but students should also be made aware that trade schools, the miliatry etc. are options. And generally they are. Recruiters from all those kinds of places came to my high school.
Click to expand...

Advice and guidance in high school, financial incentives, social stigma...there's all kinds of pressure to go to college whether it would be right for you or not.

Unless the person has learning disorders, social awkwardness (to where they don't participate, ask questions etc.). Yes. And people with such problems are just not cut out to be college students and life long learners in most cases. With exceptions as their are brillionat recluses.
Click to expand...

Earlier you said classrooms (even for people with learning disorders) but at least you agree there are actually exceptions.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
You don't want insight or experience? You don't want another powerful tool at your disposal? Does that even make sense?


[/quote]
Not even going to get deep into this because I'll definitely get some heat,
but in the other thread I said that ultimately I want to be a touring musician for a living, but I do not expect a ton of monetary compensation or big mansions. You don't get experience or insight for that from a college. That is what I want to focus on, that is what I want to spend my time on. All I need is a means to make money to support my career when I'm starting out. I also want to jump in as quick as I can. I can do that by working some odd jobs and working with a band in the meantime. Yes, you could do this in college, but I don't want to spend money doing x when I'm really focused on y.

anyway, this thread has gotten way off topic , sorry $$$$as
 
[quote name='rickonker']That's not a fair comparison. When you're a grad student you don't do all the work you want, you work under a professor.
[/quote]

I was talking about why people with Ph D's decide to become professors, rather than going into the private sector (which pays more). So it was a fair comparison as that's all I was talking about. Not why grad students go to grad school.

And besides that point, you can do work you want as a grad student on top of working on your professors stuff. Your master's thesis and dissertation are your own. And I've been lucky as my whole Ph D period has been working on a project that was my idea that my professor liked and we partnered up and got $350,000 for a grant to do.

But not everyone is that driven or fortunate, so many do just learn by working on their professors research and do theses and dissertations that are just smaller chunks of the larger project they were working on.

Again, this is after decades of societal pressure to go to college.

Advice and guidance in high school, financial incentives, social stigma...there's all kinds of pressure to go to college whether it would be right for you or not.
Click to expand...

Those are fair points. Maybe it should be tweaked a bit. But still I think for most people going to college, getting an education, getting a white collar job etc. is the best option to make decent money, be attractive on the market, and find a secure job--as long as you major in something that's in demand and marketable. And plus there's just the added benefit of learning a ton, being around more diverse people (especially for people who grew up in small towns or rural areas etc.).

But I'll concede that it needs to be made more clear that there's no shame in learning a trade or joining the military or something. College isn't for everyone. It's a waste of time for people without the ability or interest in learning. A waste of time for them and waste of time for professors trying to teach students who aren't interested in learning.

Earlier you said classrooms (even for people with learning disorders) but at least you agree there are actually exceptions.
Click to expand...

At that point we were talking about self learning vs. class room learning. Some one with learning disorders, dyslexia etc. damn sure isn't going to have have the drive or ability to learn much on their own. So they'd be better off in a special ed classroom--but I'd concede that they're probably no better off in a regular classroom that wasn't paying attention to their needs.

And of course there are exceptions to everything. But the vast majority of time if you want to learn a subject, you'll learn more in a class with an expert you can ask questions of etc., than trying to teach yourself. You just have more resources than having to read and figure it out on your own. But of course you have to be a person who participates in class and is willing to ask questions, talk to the teacher/professor etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']But still I think for most people going to college, getting an education, getting a white collar job etc. is the best option to make decent money, be attractive on the market, and find a secure job--as long as you major in something that's in demand and marketable. [/quote]

Excellent job of qualifying.

What percentage of four year degrees fall into this category? 10%?

If you throw engineering degrees out the window, what then? 5%?

If you discount disparities in wages based on geography, what then? 1%?

In this economy, what percentage of jobs are truly secure?

I'm sure somebody will argue that the top 1-10% of a degree field will have no problems getting over all of these hurdles, what about the other 90-99%?

Sorry, Jimmy, you got a B+. Looks like janitor is your best possible future.
 
Hey, now. Not getting into that with you again.

I've said before I don't think people who's only goal in life is too make as much money as possible as quickly as possible. Learn a trade or something if that's your goal. I don't particularly want such people in my classes anyway, as they are usually disinterested as they're just they're for a degree they think will help make them $$$ rather than any interest in the subject or learning for learning's sake.

As for what's a truly secure job? Tenure track professor positions. :D Nothings 100% secure, but those are about as close as you can get.

They are being effected--but mainly just losing some pay through furlough days (1-5 at my school depending on pay--well probably 2-5 for professors). But there have been no layoffs anywhere yet and probably won't be. All the non-tenure adjuncts professors, and the university staff etc. etc. will get cut to make ends meet first. And that's after doing things like turning lights and the heat off in the nights/weekends, raising tuition, increasing enrollments etc.
 
Psh. When push comes to shove, tenure's going to be as much of a guarantee of job security as having a bowl of ribbon candy on your desk. Who does the university axe during dire financial times: the high-5/low-6 figure salary for a tenured professor, or johnny-the-$2500-per-class-dude?

Keep in mind, of course, we're in a remarkable financial crisis we haven't seen in 80 years, and with the growth of adjunct instructors, the shrinking number of tenure lines, and the inclusion of "tenure review" policies to make sure that academics are keeping up with their duties following tenure (all of Frank Donoghue's argument in his book "The Last Professors," tenure ain't what it used to be. I'm not ready to call it a golden calf yet, but it's awfully damned close - only the incredibly naive will think they're going to be protected from financial crises by tenure.

Besides, tenure's for academic honesty more than it is financial security. It's to protect sensitive/controversial work. It's to keep a knucklehead like Ward Churchill in his position after doing something stupid and controversial; not after the University of Colorado system realizes it's shitting out money like it drank a gallon of ex-lax.
 
I disagree that things are going to get that bad. I think you're overly negative there, but maybe I'm overly optimistic--factor of having landed a good job while you didn't shaping our respective biases.

And it's hard to fire a tenure professor with out damn good cause for legal reasons, so yes all the adjuncts will get cut first (already been happening at many schools), tuition will be raised, enrollments increased etc. The main thing is tuition is the main source of income and we're not seeing fewer people go to college--if any we'll see more coming as people can't land jobs out of high school in this market. So colleges aren't hit quite as hard as other institutions by the economy.

Only thing that will happen to tenured faculty is no raises, hiring freezes on expanding or replacing people who leave, and furloughs/temporary pay cuts. All of which are already happening in places the worst off--and this will expand. But I don't see layoffs of tenure faculty, or even junior tenure track faculty.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']So colleges aren't hit quite as hard as other institutions by the economy[/QUOTE]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, those endowments at the university level really are pilin' up the cash to keep up with the expected returns relative to annual budgets, aren't they?
 
Those are hit for sure. I said Universities aren't hit "quite as hard". Lots of businesses are closing doors and going bankrupt. I don't think we'll see any Universities go out of business. So they aren't hit quite as hard. :D

Universities have the advantage of a steady revenue from tuition and fees (which can be increased by raising costs and admitting more students) and the legal issues with firing tenured faculty. And supply of students who want to go to college is not going to decrease.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hey, now. Not getting into that with you again.
[/quote]

I know. You like to lose less than me.

Plumber or B.S. in a random degree? Which is the best option?

make decent money: Plumber

be attractive on the market: Plumber

find a secure job: Plumber

Just because somebody goes into a trade instead college doesn't make them intellectually inferior. (A good indicator, maybe.)

If somebody wants to do anything in the arts and have a secure future, I'd say get a trade while practicing a craft in modest spare time, save a ridiculous amount of money for 20 years, become an artist at the age of 40 and live off of the savings.

If somebody wants to cause advances in a scientific field and have a secure future, I'd say get a trade, save a ridiculous amount of money for 20 years while reading what scientific journals are relevant to the advancement desired, hire a group of scientists in China or India and work them like dogs while managing savings.

If somebody wants to make a lot of money, have a secure and can't stand handling shit for a living, pray to whatever deity seems most relevant, go to college, work twice as hard as the next hardest working person, intern in your first semester and each semester afterwards, kill anybody scoring higher on tests than you and you'll be fine.
 
I'd agree with that. If you making money is your main goal, definitely don't do a BS degree if you go to college at all.

But you do better probably to say major in something like Engineering, bust ass getting good grades and doing internships (like you say). Then you'll make more in a 40 hour week than the plumber (who's been working 4 years) with a job with a set schedule that's not manual labor and have a much higher future earning ceiling.

So college can be a good choice for money driven people--but you got to pick the right field and also get work experience as when you come out (especially in today's market) you'll be up against people with degrees AND experience.

But again it's not for everyone and there's no shame whatsoever in being a plumber, carpenter, electrician etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Those are hit for sure. I said Universities aren't hit "quite as hard". Lots of businesses are closing doors and going bankrupt. I don't think we'll see any Universities go out of business. So they aren't hit quite as hard. :D

Universities have the advantage of a steady revenue from tuition and fees (which can be increased by raising costs and admitting more students) and the legal issues with firing tenured faculty. And supply of students who want to go to college is not going to decrease.[/QUOTE]

Wanting to and being able to aren't the same thing. New regulations on the availability of student loans will change who is able to go to college. I don't expect enrollment to decline, mind you, but I wouldn't be shocked if (1) it did, or (2) graduation rates dropped a good amount due to students not having funds or being able to find loans to finish their college careers.

All I'm sayin' is that university life ain't all that rosy. Especially not for you or I. Who goes after the adjuncts do? That's right. Tenure-line. Which you'll be until 2015 at the earliest. Tenure-line layoffs did and do historically happen. Not in large amounts, mind you - the last time they were really remarkable was the early 1970's.

You want to treat tenure like it makes you bulletproof, or that I'm cynical. But it's naive and absurd to walk through the current economy like you're invincible to it. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a condescending bastard sometimes, and I'm comfortable with that. But I'm no kind of blind ivory tower knucklehead that thinks he's impervious to the mechanisms of the world.

But that's me - recognizing my role in society, and acknowledging that I am, in fact, not a fully autonomous creature. I'm not going to be dining on roast duck this evening if the country club closed due to a lack of membership. My world is shaped by my social environment. You, on the other hand, focus on your, yourself, and you some more. A pure individualist who can't see past their own nose. But, given your theoretical talk of emphasizing the role of the individual, and the "somehow the topic always becomes about me and me getting a PhD" tone of your posts, it's not altogether surprising.

I can take me out of me. I can talk about topics without talking about myself. But, hey, that's my background. C. Wright Mills 101. The Sociological Imagination. On the other hand, go look at the thread about religion that popped up the other day.

Religion. Something you don't have, and something you haven't had for years. Yet every post in there is about you and how you don't have something. Not about religion itself. You are the center of your own universe, even regarding topics you have no stake in!

Ironically, in terms of correctional policy, I do support individually-based cognitive-rehabilitative programs based on categorical risk level. But that doesn't mean I see nothing but individual motivation as the causal mechanisms behind crime. But that's another conversation for another day.
 
I never said it was bullet proof. No job is 100% bullet proof. I just said it's about as secure a job as you can get. At least the company isn't going to go under, and at least there's some barriers that make layoffs difficult. So it's much more secure than most other jobs, but of course not bullet proof.

And yes I'm all about me--especially on the internet! Forums I long ago adopted the attitude of just treating as places to spout of my views with little heed to what others post or serious debate. Too many idiots (especially on freaking game site) to take it any more seriously than that. But I'm not nearly so self involved with my real friends in the real world. But, online, fuck it, I post like I'm better than every other loser posting in forums, especially forums full of video game nerds! :D

In research I'm not totally ingrained to individual level stuff, a lot of my research looks at collective efficacy etc. along with individual factors. From a theoretical stand point I'm very much an integrationist. Any complete theory of crime must account for a variety of individual and environomental factors and how they interact.

And my point on your research is many sociologists frown on that type of stuff--while most criminologist won't. Our field is more open to individual level studies as well as multilevel studies that look at the interaction of individual and societal effects (society being broad--can mean country, or city, or neighborhood, or block or family). A lot of sociologists think that type individual level stuff (or even the study of crime and criminal justice system) is something sociology shouldn't be spending time on. Hence why criminology split off.

But suit yourself, I'd rather work in a department where everyone is supportive of the type of work I do. But maybe you do more pure sociological studies and not just corrections stuff--in which case you'd have problems in a crim department.
 
It's a substantially incorrect mischaracterization to say that soc depts. frown on individual-level analysis.

(likewise, it's also wrong to assume I'm here to defend all of sociology - content analysis can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned. And take the ethnomethodologists with them.)

What I'd like you to do, perhaps to demonstrate the superiority of your claim, is to find me a criminological study that would (or, rather could) simply not be done by a sociologist. That might help make your case to me. In the meantime, I see you grasping at straws that aren't there. Saying sociologists can't/don't study individuals is akin to saying criminologists don't study rape.
 
I didn't say anything like that or made any claim of superiority. Sociologists can do great crime studies, and not all frown on crime studies or individual level studies--just that some do.

All I'm saying is that I'd never work in a Soc department because of hearing first hand of how some sociologists (particularly senior ones) frowned on work of my friends and colleagues who have soc degrees or worked in soc departments before switching to crim. As well as from older crim professors who were involved in starting some of the first crim departments and what their reasons were from wanting to split from soc.

And also, I find it's much better to work in a department where everyone understands your work as everyone is in the same field. I can ask most any faculty here or at my future employer about any idea I have. It's harder in a soc department where a lot of the faculty have never researched or even studied crime or the criminal justice system.

But sure a sociologist can do just as good of work as a criminologist. I just think working in a good crim department is a much more fruitful environment than in a soc department where faculty are doing all kinds of different studies not related to crime in anyway. But it's not a superiority claim. Just a preference of working somewhere where all my colleagues respect my field of study and are knowledge with it and can give advice or be collaborators. It also just doesn't make any sense to study soc or work in soc if you're 100% only interested in studying crime and the criminal justice system IMO. And that's why I think crim was right to branch off and why I will only work in crim departments.

And getting back to job security, I also feel safer as the department I am going to is rapidly expanding and well supported by the University. The University just gave final approval to start a Ph D in 2010--and part of that approval is hiring 4 more tenure track faculty in coming years. So I feel pretty safe, not bullet proof, but I feel pretty damn good given other's situations.
 
I think the biggest problem with education is that they pretty much cram a book into your head a chapter at a time and quiz you weekly. Next week is a new chapter and a new test. They just hope that something sticks over time. Then you take into account this happens with 4-6 classes concurrently in a tired brain full of hormones and failure is really not surprising. I also would say that not only have we been allowing failure, but we've actually encouraged and sometimes rewarded it!
 
I'd like to see how this goes. I expect more bullshit promises like in this commercial.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITaExh-BAqA[/media]
 
C'mon, man. You're changing your argument. Support of your colleagues is one thing; you were claiming that there were some thing you could not do, or would not be considered sociologically appropriate/relevant.

I don't disagree with having the support of your colleagues. But it wasn't an argument that I made to begin with.

EDIT: Woah. Mr. Banks got old!
 
[quote name='DeftPunk']I think the biggest problem with education is that they pretty much cram a book into your head a chapter at a time and quiz you weekly. Next week is a new chapter and a new test. They just hope that something sticks over time. Then you take into account this happens with 4-6 classes concurrently in a tired brain full of hormones and failure is really not surprising. I also would say that not only have we been allowing failure, but we've actually encouraged and sometimes rewarded it![/QUOTE]

That's definitely a prime example of a major flaw.

Yes memorizing stuff is important, but there needs to be more with learning something and applying it. That both helps you remember it and also shows how what you're learning can be used etc.

And a big problem with merit stuff is there's a good chance it will be judged to much by performance on standardized tests. And that promotes just that type of teaching you're complaining about as teachers have to be sure kids have memorized all the crap they need to pass those tests.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']C'mon, man. You're changing your argument. Support of your colleagues is one thing; you were claiming that there were some thing you could not do, or would not be considered sociologically appropriate/relevant.

I don't disagree with having the support of your colleagues. But it wasn't an argument that I made to begin with.[/QUOTE]

I never said crim work could not be done. Never even implied,and I'm not sure where you got that from. Of course sociologists can do crim research--the methodological training is pretty much identical. I made no superiority claims.

I said certain types of work that are prominent in crim (individual level studies, microlevel studies, and to some studies of crime period) are frowned upon by some vsociologists, and I didn't take out that part and in fact elaborated on that point.

All I ever said is why I wouldn't work in a soc department and why I'm bitter toward the field a bit since I (or my friends and colleagues) have experience with being dismissed by sociologists.

I can do better work without putting up with that crap from colleagues, and from being surround by colleagues that are all experts on criminology and criminal justice. That's all I ever said or meant to imply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's definitely a prime example of a major flaw.

Yes memorizing stuff is important, but there needs to be more with learning something and applying it. That both helps you remember it and also shows how what you're learning can be used etc.

And a big problem with merit stuff is there's a good chance it will be judged to much by performance on standardized tests. And that promotes just that type of teaching you're complaining about as teachers have to be sure kids have memorized all the crap they need to pass those tests.[/quote]
Exactly, you can lead an otaku to hentai, but you can't make him fap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Messiah is correct. We need billions of more money pumped into a system that hasn't worked for almost a century. I'm waiting for the day when the federal beaucrats completely take over education. Get those pesky parents and local school baords out of the way.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I wish we could just test like Japan, and leave the stupid kids out of the published test scores.[/quote]

Or you could shame them into suicide.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Your family members are stupid people in Japan?[/quote]

I was expecting you to say that, but I was holding onto some leftover false "hope" (from the obama campaign) that you might be mature enough to not go there :roll:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's definitely a prime example of a major flaw.

Yes memorizing stuff is important, but there needs to be more with learning something and applying it. That both helps you remember it and also shows how what you're learning can be used etc.

And a big problem with merit stuff is there's a good chance it will be judged to much by performance on standardized tests. And that promotes just that type of teaching you're complaining about as teachers have to be sure kids have memorized all the crap they need to pass those tests.[/QUOTE]

A major flaw? He described school in a nutshell. If you think it's flawed, what are you defending exactly?
 
[quote name='rickonker']A major flaw? He described school in a nutshell. If you think it's flawed, what are you defending exactly?[/QUOTE]

That schools and classrooms are necessary to educate a society but the way they are set up currently needs to be changed.

College class rooms aren't nearly as much about memorization with no application. Middle school and high school class rooms shouldn't be either. Elementary school is harder as it's just teaching basic skills--reading, writing, basic math which you have to have down before you can move on to applied learning.

We need schools and classrooms, but the whole educations system (pre-college) needs drastic reforms.
 
College class rooms aren't nearly as much about memorization with no application. Middle school and high school class rooms shouldn't be either. Elementary school is harder as it's just teaching basic skills--reading, writing, basic math which you have to have down before you can move on to applied learning.

We need schools and classrooms, but the whole educations system (pre-college) needs drastic reforms.
Click to expand...

There isn't nearly as much difference between high school and college classes as you're suggesting, but anyway...
[quote name='dmaul1114']That schools and classrooms are necessary to educate a society but the way they are set up currently needs to be changed.
[/quote]
Let's try to get into more detail here. By "schools and classrooms" I assume you don't literally mean buildings and rooms, so what do you mean? DeftPunk described the current school/classroom experience (including college), and you don't want that either. So what do you want?
 
College was actually worse than highschool for me. My sociology teacher photocopied the book and just blanked out key words for you to fill in. :lol:

My Politics professor would ask us to "summarize" an article, but unless we transcribed it verbatim, we'd be marked down for leaving out a word.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I was expecting you to say that, but I was holding onto some leftover false "hope" (from the obama campaign) that you might be mature enough to not go there :roll:[/quote]

I'll never be mature.

If my wife said, "We can fuck right now once, or fuck tomorrow twice.", I'm not waiting for tomorrow.
 
[quote name='rickonker']There isn't nearly as much difference between high school and college classes as you're suggesting, but anyway...
[/quote]

Bullshit. You guys must have went to some shitty college or just had shitty professors.

College was much more about lecture and discussion in my experience, while high school was a lot of reading and busy work. Sure some college classes (especially large ones) are like that, but most aren't Not in my experience.

Let's try to get into more detail here. By "schools and classrooms" I assume you don't literally mean buildings and rooms, so what do you mean? DeftPunk described the current school/classroom experience (including college), and you don't want that either. So what do you want?
Click to expand...

I'm getting tired of going through the same shit with you over and over and you're tinkering on the edge of getting put on ignore for asking the same questions over and over when I've already answered them, but I'll humor you one last time on this by putting it in very simply language that hopefully you can grasp....

The best learning environment for the vast majority of people is a school setting with a great teachers who get their students involved by teaching in a way that students don't just memorize the material but learn how to apply and learn the importance and joy of learning.

For reasons I outlined repeatedly yesterday (covering more topics, having an expert on hand, having peers to discuss and work with on the materials etc.), that's superior than learning on your own and it's also superior to a class room that's just hammering boring material at students with little discussion or application of what's being learned.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Bullshit. You guys must have went to some shitty college or just had shitty professors.

College was much more about lecture and discussion in my experience, while high school was a lot of reading and busy work. Sure some college classes (especially large ones) are like that, but most aren't Not in my experience.[/quote]

Not everyone had the same experience you did. That doesn't make what everyone else says bullshit. There might be high schools and colleges with both of the kinds of experiences you describe.

Let's compare what we know everyone probably did have in both high school and college: the grading system. Pretty much everyone had classes/courses with a teacher/professor, multiple assignments and tests, and a grade from A-F...in both high school and college. And these are the two environments you think are radically different from each other?

The best learning environment for the vast majority of people is a school setting with a great teachers who get their students involved by teaching in a way that students don't just memorize the material but learn how to apply and learn the importance and joy of learning.
Click to expand...

And you think today's schools and colleges even come close to meeting your criteria? Don't just say "they have flaws and need reform". Is the average student getting an experience that's even in the ballpark?
 
In a good college, yes I believe so. At least outside of the huge intro classes which by nature are just lecture as they are just intros to a huge field. Once you get to the smaller upper level courses, the classes revolve more around discussion and applying knowledge you've learned to get you ready for a job in that field or to go on to more advanced study in grad school.

But the one thing I'll ask those of you who seem to think schools are hopeless--what other setting is there? There is no other option for mass education. We just have to find a way to get schools to work.

What else is there? Homeschooling? Self teaching? Doesn't work, you need a teacher who has a grasp of the material they are teaching--no parent can do that as no one is an expert on every area of study. With self teaching you have no expert on hand to ask questions of etc.

Formal education in a society necessitates a school system. Ours is just broken. Other countries are doing very well. And as Myke said a lot of the problems are not with the school system but with society outside of schools.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But the one thing I'll ask those of you who seem to think schools are hopeless--what other setting is there? There is no other option for mass education. We just have to find a way to get schools to work.

What else is there? Homeschooling? Self teaching? Doesn't work, you need a teacher who has a grasp of the material they are teaching--no parent can do that as no one is an expert on every area of study. With self teaching you have no expert on hand to ask questions of etc.

Formal education in a society necessitates a school system. Ours is just broken.[/quote]
Again, self-teaching is not the only alternative to today's school/college system. Since you asked, I believe there should be much more variety and experimentation in schools and education. Today there is virtually none, and the reason for that is obvious.
Other countries are doing very well.
Click to expand...
Of course, that depends on the measure you use.
 
I'd agree with you on the need for creativity and experimentation in the classroom to find out what works best.

First step toward that is getting away from reliance on standardized tests which force teaching a certain way.

College is just up to the individual professors. They're mainly there to do their research (teaching colleges aside), and already have freedom to do whatever they want in the classroom as long as they're covering the relevant material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top