• What is the cause of the problem with the American education system?
    89 replies, posted
I as an american student say it's all the shit they force on us. I don't need basic art to be successful, and I sure as hell don't need a parenting class. It's so stupid that its forced on us and we are expected to do it. Of course I do it, because if I don't I can't go to college.
[QUOTE=Extinct;35375071]Don't say that. I just did "the Universitytest" here in sweden to see what my general University studying capability is and all of the questions are of the "Choose between 4 answers"-type. They are however written by people at uni so they are high quality I guess. Just saying this thing is renowned here in sweden for it's difficulty.[/QUOTE] I've found them to be too simple. I've aced tests where I barely knew half the material on it simply because it's multiple choice. Especially if they put obviously wrong answers for three of the choices, which many do. It's not a matter of knowing the correct answer, it's just simply having the common sense to know which ones aren't the right answer - and bingo, you pass.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35374178]Elaborate on that. This is a debate, and while you haven't necessarily just stated your position in an argument, you have yet to make one of your own. So, do that.[/QUOTE] All social/state constructs are built to support our mode of production. School is a state construct and our economic mode of production is flawed, thus School is built to support (through indoctrination) a flawed economic mode of production
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35304087]Budget being spent on killing brown people and outdated, un-inspired way of teaching kids. They teach you how to get good grades, not expose you to actual knowledge.[/QUOTE] Great. Who better to bring something like this into the thread.
[QUOTE=prooboo;35379720]All social/state constructs are built to support our mode of production. School is a state construct and our economic mode of production is flawed, thus School is built to support (through indoctrination) a flawed economic mode of production[/QUOTE] Could you give evidence to support these claims? Mainly "All social/state constructs are built to support our mode of production." and "our economic mode of production is flawed."?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35378897]I've found them to be too simple. I've aced tests where I barely knew half the material on it simply because it's multiple choice. Especially if they put obviously wrong answers for three of the choices, which many do. It's not a matter of knowing the correct answer, it's just simply having the common sense to know which ones aren't the right answer - and bingo, you pass.[/QUOTE] When you put it like that I understand. You don't need any knowledge beforehand in order to pass, basicly. yeah, I can accept that.
[QUOTE=Nevermind.;35299866]In my opinion it is because in America, education is not an option it is rather something forced upon kids.[/QUOTE] In a way he's right. I'm a firm believer in universal education but that sort of is the problem. The way I see it the American education system has two major problems, and they're both closely related: 1 they don't have enough money, 2 nobody cares. A considerable majority of students couldn't care less about education and just use school to play sports and socialize, this puts strain on shools' inadequate budgets because for every 10 students that actually give a sh**, they have to pay to educate 2,000 who don't, not to mention they have to spend a ton trying to keep those careless students in line and stop them from being a problem to the ones that are trying to learn. Also plenty of people outside the school system don't care enough to do it. Recently where I live there was a bill they were pushing to give the school funding to replace its 10 year old computer systems with ones that actually work, it got shot down because nobody cared enough to be willing to have their tax money go to education.
[QUOTE=neutra;35304131]That's just it. It's a right. It shouldn't be forced upon someone. If someone wants to be in journalism, why should they /have/ to take physics and chem?[/QUOTE] You did not read article 26 of the UDHR because it clearly states that education in its elementary stages should be compulsory. To add to that, you did not answer my question why having an elementary education conpulsory would be the cause of its issues. The reason why pupils should be taught a wide variety of subjects is to make it easier for them to change proffesion if it is ever needed, due to changes in the labour market, or if the individual who wanted to be journalism changes his mind. For example, in Sweden where I live, there is a fundamental flaw in the education system; those who choose a practical program (e.g. carpenter, welder, plumber etc.) in secondary do not recieve the education necessary to be eligible to get access to higher education. This has both social and economical consequences for both the individuals who chose a practical program, and the society as a whole once the demand for workforce in practical branches diminishes (which is inevitable). The societal consequences is that those who were educated under a practical program will have a harder time changing proffesion due to the doors towards higher education being closed. This in turn breeds room for economical problems as the practical workforce suffers high unemployment due to reduced demand, and branches in other parts of the labour market might need new workforce but people are lacking the necessary competence (education). The consequences for the individual is higher risk of being unemployed long-term, being dependant on welfare, having a harder time getting a re-education, and psychological problems associated with long-term unemployment for some people; anxiety, apathy etc. So, in conclusion, compulsory and wide education is needed to prepare for changes in the labour market, and granting people the ability to change their profession.
My experience of reading about this is constrained to just mathematics, but I'm sure that a lot of what's written here applies to other subjects as well: [url]http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/essays/stamford.html[/url] [url]http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf[/url] And a glimpse of a better system: [url]http://www.crme.soton.ac.uk/publications/kjpubs/somelessons.html[/url]
in my opinion, I think that it is because it's forced upon kids and they aren't learning something that they want to learn, I think that if they were able to have more freedom to choose their classes than they could find something they like, and when you like something, you want to learn about it (for me anyway) like, if you like a girl/guy, you want to get to know them better, but if there's that creepy dude/girl that is always trying to talk to you and she/he annoys the crap out of you and you don't like her at all, well, school is that girl to most kids, except for the select few that like to learn everything. so if school was more an attractive girl (as in, it's about what interests the students, if you haven't caught on to that) I think students would want to pay attention and learn because they are learning about what they like
There's nothing wrong with education being mandatory. Does any adult really think it's a bright idea to leave it up to a 14 year old to decide if they want to go to school or not?
[QUOTE=falloutguy;35388744]in my opinion, I think that it is because it's forced upon kids and they aren't learning something that they want to learn, I think that if they were able to have more freedom to choose their classes than they could find something they like, and when you like something, you want to learn about it (for me anyway) like, if you like a girl/guy, you want to get to know them better, but if there's that creepy dude/girl that is always trying to talk to you and she/he annoys the crap out of you and you don't like her at all, well, school is that girl to most kids, except for the select few that like to learn everything. so if school was more an attractive girl (as in, it's about what interests the students, if you haven't caught on to that) I think students would want to pay attention and learn because they are learning about what they like[/QUOTE] if kids don't want to learn a subject then why not try to improve the subject?
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35380868]Could you give evidence to support these claims? Mainly "All social/state constructs are built to support our mode of production." and "our economic mode of production is flawed."?[/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/450px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png[/img] Economic mode of production is our way of appropriating resources to meet our physiological needs there at the bottom. If the way we think comes into conflict with the way we get our needs for life, either our culture must change to suit our needs, or means of appropriating resources must change to suit the culture. Whichever has greater influence will win. Currently, that's the economy. [B]tl;dr: The economy is the most important part of society because it determines how we get what we eat, and everything is built around it.[/B] The economic mode of production is flawed because: Part I of this: 1. Authority in economics is a result of a need to centralize control to adequately meet the physiological needs of people in society. When there is less of a needed thing (note: NEEDED), there are are more authoritarian means of appropriating that thing for society. 2. As the ability to produce more of that need increases, less authority is needed to manage the production of that needed thing. 3. As production increases to the point of surplus, authority is needed less and less, as there is enough of the needed thing to satisfy the masses without there being too much work going into creating it. Part II of this: 1. Business owners must invest in new technology to increase production and reduce costs. 2. This increase in production eventually leads to overproduction 3. Unsupervised overproduction leads to market saturation 4. Market saturation leads to widespread unemployment, as the business owner must cut production to compensate for a market unwilling to buy the commodity. 5. Unemployment leads to Poverty Now, take a need like food. The habitual overproduction of food leads to market saturation over and over again even with perishable commodities, signifying that it is not a one-time surge of overproduction, but that with the current technology overproduction will happen again after this, leading to a cycle of "Boom and Bust", in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Now consider the irony of the situation of poverty as a result of overproduction of food: People starve because there is too much food. Now bring Keynesian economics in and you get minimum wage laws, quotas, health and safety regulations, etc. along with more government involvement and regulation in the market. This marks up the cost of production in countries like the US and Britain Thus, the business owner must export labor to foreign countries with less economic regulation either through military force (imperialism) or economic coercion (globalism), which often go hand-in-hand. Thus, the economic paradigm will not accept "No" as an answer, and relies on wage slavery to produce things. Even though the technology is at a point where we can produce more than enough of our needs, we still have people telling us when and what to produce. The authority of our paradigm is no longer necessary to our physiological needs, and thus we have a massive contradiction between management and labor. [B]tl;dr: our current paradigm is broken because it necessitates using people as a means to an end rather than making the welfare of people an end in themselves, and our education system is built around putting people into this system as efficiently as possible, turning people into commodities.[/B] [editline]2nd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35389965]if kids don't want to learn a subject then why not try to improve the subject?[/QUOTE] There's only so much you can do to change the subject. At the end of the day, chemistry is all just boring math to some students. Some people like it, and some people don't.
[QUOTE=prooboo;35400156] Detailed text [/QUOTE] I am aware of the approach you are taking here and I agree with you to a large extent. Education in the USA and in the UK is geared to getting people into jobs rather than teaching people about things they enjoy. Hence why so many young people are disenfranchised with the system. On a side note: Maybe include a TL;DR because there are a lot of people who won't bother to read what you wrote.
Honestly, as a Special Education student, it really is about 'memorization' instead of utilization. Several of my teachers in my Senior year acknowledged that all of the testing is basically for funding and that we were [i]only[/i] taught what was on the standardized tests to keep that up. Which created a few cases of my same teachers actually trying to expand beyond that and do interesting things so that either our interests were kept or we actually learned something that wasn't just a memory to put in on a test. While funding is a major problem in that some classes and schools lack the books, devices or otherwise needed to make a better education possible, there's also the fact that education in the U.S. is typically done in a matter that makes the students not give a collective fuck for the respective subjects except to top their grades and nothing else. A lot of adults only know what they're interested in - if they didn't care for, say, Algebra and Calculus, they probably wouldn't bother to remember it and thus struggle with it if it came up years later after they graduated (or even weeks later). I should know, I barely remember my Science or Math classes at all, and due to the fact that Math was my weakest subject, they basically only had me do half of my Algebra stuff and then cut me off from continuing in it.
[QUOTE=Nevermind.;35299866]In my opinion it is because in America, education is not an option it is rather something forced upon kids.[/QUOTE] I agree with this statement but would also say that a lot of parents do not put the value of education in their children's heads. They just plop them in front of the telly and expect their kid to learn good values. I've personally seen examples of this phenomenon and am saddened by it.
I think that school standards should be higher. Even the worst and most underprivileged kids graduate. If all schools had higher standards of learning and requirements and stopped being so easy on the kids then I wonder if we would be better. And if it is too much then well, some people just aren't cut out for school. They can go pick up jobs somebody with a college education wouldn't want, lots of "dirty" jobs pay really well! I just look around at my classmates at my new school and think "Wow, if only they had higher standards for the kids, they have so much more potential than the district thinks..."
If I can teach derivatives and integrals to a 6th grader in a day (which I have) than a senior in high school taught by a professional should be able to do so as well.
Honestly? Because kids are more or less forced into learning something they don't want to learn, so they're not going to put effort into something they're not interested in. If a student is forced into some class like trigonometry or calculus which doesn't have many uses outside of some very specialized fields that they might not want to do, well no shit that they're going to put little effort in and score low and the like. After you take your basic courses, you should be able to specialize into something you want to learn more about or that you will use later in life, not be forced into some class that teaches why Triangle X plus 2 equals sofa cushion. It's something kids usually don't want to do, and they won't do if they don't have an interest in higher maths, histories, sciences, etc. I know this happens in colleges, but it should be available so much earlier in your education. If you let kids take classes they're interested in themselves for whatever reason, they'd do so much better in those classes. I'm not much of a math person, but I love History and English. I should be able to take History and English since I will use them quite a bit in the future I have planned for myself, and not have to take geometry or something like that which I will hardly use. It all boils down to kids being interested in what they're taught, because if they aren't they most likely will not do well or get anything out of it.
[QUOTE=Noble;35389831]There's nothing wrong with education being mandatory. Does any adult really think it's a bright idea to leave it up to a 14 year old to decide if they want to go to school or not?[/QUOTE] Do you think anyone is justified to force them into something they have not consented to and have no will to attend? Compulsory education is a violation of human rights, tantamount to slavery. It's the unwilling, unconsented, uncompensated forcing of an innocent human being into labor for the betterment and profit of others. Not only is it morally reprehensible, it's virtually completely ineffective at the intellectual advancement of the population. There is little universal structure, valuable funds are appropriated towards non-educational expenditures (sports teams, teacher bonuses), the ideas of intellectualism as a whole are not fostered in nearly any way, and it completely exhausts the attending population, both physically and mentally. There is no room for progressive thinking, because the structure that does exist is detrimental to the student body and is usually formed in the wake of political reasons. In my opinion, while public, costless, structured education should be available to all, it is in need of major reforms and should only be 'patronized' by consenting individuals, able to withdraw or enroll at their own will. For this to happen, the civilized world as a whole has to begin to foster a culture that promotes intellectualism to the entirety of the masses. Thus, the drive to improve one's intellect will willfully lead them into schooling, and those who do not wish to will not be unwillingly forced into a situation they have no hope of escaping.
I do believe that, in modern society, people who are supposed to be in school rather dislike it because, heck: they see people who succeed without it. see: Lebron James, Nicholas Cage, Johnny Depp. Before, few people had education. And, without education, your life was focused on just surviving. Nowadays, kids can just mooch off their parents so to speak and, voila. [I]"But Daddy, I want to be a basketball player! Lebron didn't go to high school!"[/I]
[QUOTE=mastermaul;35421639]Do you think anyone is justified to force them into something they have not consented to and have no will to attend? Compulsory education is a violation of human rights, tantamount to slavery. It's the unwilling, unconsented, uncompensated forcing of an innocent human being into labor for the betterment and profit of others. Not only is it morally reprehensible, it's virtually completely ineffective at the intellectual advancement of the population. There is little universal structure, valuable funds are appropriated towards non-educational expenditures (sports teams, teacher bonuses), the ideas of intellectualism as a whole are not fostered in nearly any way, and it completely exhausts the attending population, both physically and mentally. There is no room for progressive thinking, because the structure that does exist is detrimental to the student body and is usually formed in the wake of political reasons. In my opinion, while public, costless, structured education should be available to all, it is in need of major reforms and should only be 'patronized' by consenting individuals, able to withdraw or enroll at their own will. For this to happen, the civilized world as a whole has to begin to foster a culture that promotes intellectualism to the entirety of the masses. Thus, the drive to improve one's intellect will willfully lead them into schooling, and those who do not wish to will not be unwillingly forced into a situation they have no hope of escaping.[/QUOTE] I agree that the current education system is shit and needs major reforms but I think calling it "tantamount to slavery" sounds a bit dramatic and also raises the question of should a young child really have the legal ability to make such a huge decision at that stage of their life. It would be nice if we lived in a culture that promotes intellectualism and where everyone actually [b]wants[/b] to get educated, but in reality we live in a culture that glorifies stupidity and anti-intellectualism (Jersey Shore, for example). I think that in this environment, making school optional would bring up a lot of issues like what to do with all these kids running around doing stupid shit and causing trouble (because they certainly aren't going to be sitting around in a library or on the internet learning about history and philosophy).
[QUOTE=mastermaul;35421639]Do you think anyone is justified to force them into something they have not consented to and have no will to attend? Compulsory education is a violation of human rights, tantamount to slavery. It's the unwilling, unconsented, uncompensated forcing of an innocent human being into labor for the betterment and profit of others. Not only is it morally reprehensible, it's virtually completely ineffective at the intellectual advancement of the population. There is little universal structure, valuable funds are appropriated towards non-educational expenditures (sports teams, teacher bonuses), the ideas of intellectualism as a whole are not fostered in nearly any way, and it completely exhausts the attending population, both physically and mentally. There is no room for progressive thinking, because the structure that does exist is detrimental to the student body and is usually formed in the wake of political reasons. In my opinion, while public, costless, structured education should be available to all, it is in need of major reforms and should only be 'patronized' by consenting individuals, able to withdraw or enroll at their own will. For this to happen, the civilized world as a whole has to begin to foster a culture that promotes intellectualism to the entirety of the masses. Thus, the drive to improve one's intellect will willfully lead them into schooling, and those who do not wish to will not be unwillingly forced into a situation they have no hope of escaping.[/QUOTE] You seem to forget, there is a point in every kid's life where they would say "Screw school, it's stupid, I'll go work at BK and stuff" It is completely insane to let a child choose whether or not they want to go to school. And as a parent, or government, have no say in what they do. Not even a parent should exempt their child from schooling whether it is public, private, or homeschooled. Our constitution says the government is to protect the general welfare. That means keeping bad people off the streets, drugs out of the home, not glorifying tobacco or drugs on TV, and making them get a basic education. Just a few things that fall under the government's duties to it's people. [editline]4th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TastyMocha;35421951]I do believe that, in modern society, people who are supposed to be in school rather dislike it because, heck: they see people who succeed without it. see: Lebron James, Nicholas Cage, Johnny Depp. Before, few people had education. And, without education, your life was focused on just surviving. Nowadays, kids can just mooch off their parents so to speak and, voila. [I]"But Daddy, I want to be a basketball player! Lebron didn't go to high school!"[/I][/QUOTE] But the major people in the spotlight compared to the world population is a big difference. I once had a teacher that said you had a better chance at getting hit by lightning than becoming a professional athlete. Those people got lucky, they got opportunities some people didn't. We are not all offered the same opportunities in life and that is fine. Life isn't fair and the government shouldn't change things so that everybody gets a fair deal when it impedes on the progress of a nation or group.
There needs to be a focus on science from the FIRST year children are at school. They should be able to find the area of a sphere in forth grade. They should be doing algebra as soon as possible.
[QUOTE=Sickle;35422493]There needs to be a focus on science from the FIRST year children are at school. They should be able to find the area of a sphere in forth grade. They should be doing algebra as soon as possible.[/QUOTE] That's not Science, that's Mathematics. Also, what you're suggesting (finding area of a sphere by Year 4) would imply a work-load too heavy for the students (because the basics should be out of the way first). You should only be teaching practical applications of Mathematics till Year 7. You don't want to give students so much work that they end up caving in and hating Mathematics, it should be balanced out.
A big problem is probably the school schedules, what with the huge holiday breaks and getting up ridiculously early in the morning. Also too many classes are homework based rather than assessment based. For example, a kid could be given an assignment, regurgitate the answers from their book onto the paper, and receive a perfect grade. Then when the test rolls around, they fail because they copied out of a book instead of actually learning the material. But because the class is based on assignments, they still pass despite not having learned anything. Another thing is that a lot of people are simply too unintelligent and uninterested in it, obviously. But another thing that isn't really accounted for is that a lot of kids are capable enough to educate themselves outside of school, and are then stuck in classes that are far below their skill range. Like in 8th grade, the school made me take basic algebra along with most of the other 8th graders, while I was way past that and learning trigonometry at home. [editline]4th April 2012[/editline] And at the same time schools need to focus on making the students better people and teaching them how not to be dicks.
I agree a lot with what Upgrade123 said. In that sense, I have a 3.45 GPA, but I just scorde a 32 on the ACT when people with my GPA are only scoring around a 26. My brother had a 2.9 GPA and scored a 35, so I think it is more knowledge and intuition for the ACT rather than the amount of work for a school class needed.
[QUOTE=crackberry;35434360]I agree a lot with what Upgrade123 said. In that sense, I have a 3.45 GPA, but I just scorde a 32 on the ACT when people with my GPA are only scoring around a 26. My brother had a 2.9 GPA and scored a 35, so I think it is more knowledge and intuition for the ACT rather than the amount of work for a school class needed.[/QUOTE] I have failed multiple classes with F's and gotten perfect 600's on the SOL (Virginia Exit Exam). Same with the final exam and other tests.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35422849]That's not Science, that's Mathematics. Also, what you're suggesting (finding area of a sphere by Year 4) would imply a work-load too heavy for the students (because the basics should be out of the way first). You should only be teaching practical applications of Mathematics till Year 7. You don't want to give students so much work that they end up caving in and hating Mathematics, it should be balanced out.[/QUOTE] Mathematics is a practical science. If you accustom them to the work load, they won't need a balance.
[QUOTE=Sickle;35422493]There needs to be a focus on science from the FIRST year children are at school. They should be able to find the area of a sphere in forth grade. They should be doing algebra as soon as possible.[/QUOTE] No, there shouldnt be a required curriculum. Students should choose what they want to learn
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.