I considered working with the French system, which allows students to major in Literature, Language and History; Technology or "Social Sciences" (actually a mixture of the other two.) However, I decided this was awkward, and thus decided to askew curricula entirely. Classes can be chosen by students.
I have heard the protests a thousand times, secondary school students are too immature to make important decisions. If we keep saying that, they will be too immature because they have never been asked to be mature. I am hoping my view will find some followers on Hatrack, which has a slightly higher view of adolescents, myself excluded, than society in general. Let them take ancient history, or Existential philosophy or non-Euclidean Geometry.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My school (that I work at, not that I attended) tried that. It was a cataclysmic failure.
I think it would have worked for me as a student, and probably for you as well. But not for the majority.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Icarus said. Additionally, you're ignoring the conceptual bases of most subjects. As you said:
quote:Let them take ancient history, or Existential philosophy or non-Euclidean Geometry.
How are they going to learn Existential philosophy without learning something about the nature of philosophy first? You can't intelligently critique Aristotle, Plato or Aquinas without first understanding them.
With non-Euclidean Geometry as well--you can't understand the subject without first understanding the nature of Euclidean Geometery. You need to know how to construct a mathematical proof, how to draw conclusions deductively from given facts, etc. You can't get much further than trivia without going further into the realm of analytical geometry and abstract algebra, which requires you to learn Calculus first. There's a reason these are college subjects. Math is a cumulative field where you can't possibly make any progress without knowing the prerequisites. You might as well suggest that kids learn how to do differential equations without first understanding the nature of functions.
Finally, while adolescents are perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions, they often haven't had the experience to get to know their interests. Heck, most college students don't know where their interests lie. Had I gone to a school with your suggested curriculum, I never would have gotten into History, writing, debate, etc. I never would have realized that I was more interested in the law than in science, because I never would have been exposed to the law.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"they often haven't had the experience to get to know their interests." A common argument, and not one I have much patience with. I think that my view of it as paternalistic is thoroughly justified and would be echoed by many of my peers, although I was surprised to learn how many of them do not mind being systematically patronized. My generation is not the group of mindless, dopped-out idiots that we are so frequently characterized as, and I resent the view that we lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle our own education and must instead entrust this task to our wise and benevolent elders.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "they often haven't had the experience to get to know their interests." A common argument, and not one I have much patience with. I think that my view of it as paternalistic is thoroughly justified and would be echoed by many of my peers, although I was surprised to learn how many of them do not mind being systematically patronized. My generation is not the group of mindless, dopped-out idiots that we are so frequently characterized as, and I resent the view that we lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle our own education and must instead entrust this task to our wise and benevolent elders.
quote:A common argument, and not one I have much patience with. I think that my view of it as paternalistic is thoroughly justified and would be echoed by many of my peers, although I was surprised to learn how many of them do not mind being systematically patronized. My generation is not the group of mindless, dopped-out idiots that we are so frequently characterized as, and I resent the view that we lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle our own education and must instead entrust this task to our wise and benevolent elders.
Come back in 5 years and tell me that
It's not your generation specifically, it's adolescents in general, even bright ones. I was on the U.S. Physics team in high school, and one would have expected the 5 of us to all continue into pure physics. None of us ended up majoring in physics. One went into math, another computer science, I was a mechanical engineer who went on to law school. What you think you want today can easily change as you mature, and part of the older generation's responsibility is, yes, paternalistically protecting you from your own lack of experience by providing a broad enough education so that you can change fields later if you want.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the difference between the way high school students are treated and college students are treated is that, for the first two years of high school, most people are required by law to attend, and even after, most people are required by their parents/guardians to go to school. So you get a lot more of the people who are just there counting the minutes and whatnot. I agree no prescribed curriculum in the sense that we have now, but each path still needs to be taken in order (this is true of college classes as well; see "prerequisite" in your student handbook) and at least a "default" curriculum--for the screwballs, or for those who just want to be exposed to more things--is a good idea, if handled properly.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
And you can't teach "ancient history" on a university level in high school because, well, it's high school. The kids don't have the background.
And existential philosophy makes no sense without the centuries of philosophy built up behind it. You need a background in Platonism, Aristotelianism, and all the other significant schools, the conflicts that arose between them, through the Enlightenment, and further, before you could properly critique something so modern. Just like you can't teach medieval theology without understanding the issues in translating and transmitting Aritotle to the scholars of the west, and how it got there, and why, and the massive effect it had in an amazingly short time. Anything less gives an incomplete picture and poor understanding. And it's not an easy topic, almost impossible to teach one's self (believe me, I tried it, and it was miserable).
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
80% of students who start college switch their major at least once. Did you know that?
So, saying that the average student knows definitively what they want to do is incorrect. They may have an idea of what they want to do, but 80% of them change their mind *at least once* during four years of college.
These are adults we're talking about, too. Better yet, adults who did well enough academically to be accepted to college. 80% of these don't know exactly what they want when they are 18.
Rewind another four years. If 80% have changed their mind between the ages of 18 and 22, you can be sure the number is higher for students who change their mind between 14-22 - and likely just between the ages of 14-20.
The statement was: "Finally, while adolescents are perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions, they often haven't had the experience to get to know their interests."
It was not that your generation is a "group of mindless, doped-out idiots" that "lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle [your]own education and must instead entrust this task to [your] wise and benevolent elders."
One does not imply the other.
The first statement is based on the fact that most people do not know the paths of their lives at 18, therefore most people do not know at 14. It is saying that time and life experience alter people's perceptions more often than not.
The second statement is a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived slight.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My generation is not the group of mindless, dopped-out idiots that we are so frequently characterized as, and I resent the view that we lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to handle our own education and must instead entrust this task to our wise and benevolent elders.
Nobody has stated or implied any such calumny about your generation. What many of us have pointed out is that kids don't know best, because they lack experience, education, and foresight. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it happens to be true. (You provide admirable proof of the truth of this statement with your rejection of the wisdom of people who clearly have more experience and education than you do.)
I've known a whole lot more members of your generation than you have.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, I changed my declared major on my very first day of college.
I didn't until I started sophomore year And then I completely changed fields after graduation. But something a career counselor told me made me feel a lot better: The average American will change jobs 12 times, and careers 3 times over the course of a lifetime.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is also not including students who enter college with no major or "undecided" - I can't find stats on what portion of incoming freshmen that is, but I know from my own experience (in an Honors dorm no less) that it's a lot of people.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, I changed my declared major on my very first day of college.
I didn't until I started sophomore year And then I completely changed fields after graduation. But something a career counselor told me made me feel a lot better: The average American will change jobs 12 times, and careers 3 times over the course of a lifetime.
I'm 22 and done it...*counts* seven times (changed jobs, not careers). Uh oh.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The average American will change jobs 12 times, and careers 3 times over the course of a lifetime.
Not Pelegius, though, I'm assuming. He is wise beyond his years and knows how the entire course of his life will unfold at the age of 17 - surely, he will not deviate from the path based on life experience, as age and experience have no bearing on decisions made for his future.
posted
Most colleges have pretty strict requirements (or "guidelines") in what they want of their incoming students. The UCs have a very strict list, for example. I know in high school I felt pressure to take four years of math, science, English, foriegn language, history, and an art/music course in order to prepare for college. If I hadn't taken such a program, I wouldn't have been competative at the more select universities.
I went into high school knowing I was going to college, and thus I signed up for all the hard courses. Students who were less certain - or had no plans to attend college - still had to take the core classes of science, math, English, and history. Some of them later decided that they wanted to go to college, and, because of the requirements my high school had for its students, they were prepared (or could become so after their decision).
A good thing about required core classes is that it keeps doors opens to students who might accidently close them.
Also, it's GOOD for students to take courses that they don't particularly enjoy. I'm thinking of the math nerd who hates English, or the drama student who can't stand math and science. That math nerd will still need to communicate in writing in the future. That drama student will have to do taxes, and will need an understanding of science to follow many current debates and topics (see the mistrust of science thread). The core courses are core because they're needed to be a functioning member of our civilization.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: What many of us have pointed out is that kids don't know best, because they lack experience, education, and foresight. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it happens to be true.
Not for every kid.
Posts: 1164 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Edit to add: Also, since this thread is about a sweeping proposal for a secondary school that affects every kid, the exceptions to the rule are not germane to the discussion.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yes, for every kid. The only way to be the same person at 24 that you were at 14 is to live in isolation for 10 years. And even if some kids actually will stick to the path they think they're on, there's no way of knowing which kids they are.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you can't make policies of any kind based on the 'exceptions to the rule.' You make policies for the majority, and try to figure out ways to allow the minority ways to adapt the policies to their needs. At my university you can petition pretty much ANY rule - and if you make a good case for why your situation is different, you'll be excused from following it.
edit - these rules include academic policies (final exam times, major requirements, group requirements, credit limits, etc), housing policies (move-in times, what you can have in your room, roommate policies, living off-campus rules, etc), extracurricular activities, honors programs, financial aid policies and rules, summer programs... pretty much anything can be challenged. But the rules in general are a good thing for the majority of the students.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: What many of us have pointed out is that kids don't know best, because they lack experience, education, and foresight. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it happens to be true.
Not for every kid.
I'm sorry, Jeesh, that you are seeing offense where none is intended or given. But yes. For. every. kid.
How many years have you taught?
How many children do you have? For how long have you been a parent?
What was your college degree in?
How far did you get in graduate school?
Try to understand: I'm not claiming to be more intelligent than you are. I'm not saying you won't be a wiser adult. But for you to claim that you have a more well-rounded perspective than I do on this topic is absurd, and evinces just how shallow your perspective is.
Again, I'm sorry if that offends you. Offending you is not my wish.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Icarus: What many of us have pointed out is that kids don't know best, because they lack experience, education, and foresight. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it happens to be true. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for every kid.
In Jeesh's defense, more often than we like to admit, a kid, starting at a young age, will know better than their parents, and in the absence of any other supposed authority, you can say that the kid does know best.
So if we take the situation in context, for a particular child, in a particular family, it can be the case that the child knows best. Thankfully, these family situations are in the minority, but since we are talking about a vast pool, raw numbers of children in this situation can't be ignored.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In defense of Jeesh, I think he is saying that some kids have a pretty good idea of things with relation to many adults, especially with regard to education and foresight.
I'm sure, Ic, you have met a few students who were very capable young people who would fare very well in the real world at the age of 14 - quite possibly better than many adults.
Will experience enhance and deepen their understanding and capability? Sure it will, but there is that rare, rare, tiny portion that are older than their age would seem to dictate.
In four years of teaching, I've met two and only taught one of them.
This is not to say these two won't change the course of their lives several times, either. Change is natural. Some people just reach maturity earlier than others.
But again, it is the exception.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am in favor of a basic system of prerequisites. Those who do not yet know what they wish to do with their lives can take a variety of classes.
It may come as a surprise to some, but, in many countries, university student cannot change their major. Thus, they are expected to enter a university with a clear idea of what they intended to do. If a British student can do this, so can an American student. Indeed, in countries following a European model, such choices are made closer to fifteen than eighteen. I am sorry if this fact does not fit into you preconceived notions of reality. We constantly underestimate ourselves and others because of it, the point I tried to make in my "Education in a Culture of Mediocrity" thread.
But then I lack experience, education, and foresight and thus cannot be taken seriously. This may be true, but am I to believe that it is only true of youth? Take education in the U.K., are the past several generations Parliamentary majorities and educational experts all adolescents with limited experience, education, and foresight? Of course not, adolescents do not have limited experience, education, and foresight, they simply lack these qualities all together.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that kids never know better in any context. But in the context of this discussion, where expertise and experience form such a substantial basis, its absurd to discount what those of us who have lived and worked in the trenches know. Jeesh's blind, ignorant assertion that we don't know what kids can learn because we've never tried to teach them is actually more than a little insulting, but I let it slide because I knew she didn't know what she was talking about.
(And let's not fall prey to the trap of romanticizing childhood and youthful intelligence.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Of course there are some kids who would fare well in the adult world at 14. I was one.
But, we're getting a little off track. Yes, kids know what they're interested in now better than their parents. However, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't still have to take a broad liberal arts curriculum so that if (and most likely when) they change their mind, they're able to. If there's one segment of society that should be treated paternalistically, it's children Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: But then I lack experience, education, and foresight and thus cannot be taken seriously.
Typical. Do you not see that you have been taken seriously?
Would you recognize being taken seriously if it happened? People taking the time to explain why they disagree with your ideas, or which parts of your ideas they disagree with . . . that's the essence of it. You seem to think "Gosh Pel, you're right! What a genius! Where can I sign up for your newsletter?!" is being taken seriously.
Does it hurt, being a martyr all the time?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actualy, you are being more than a little insulting, to Jeesh, to me and to young people throughout the world. I am sure you mean well, but you are being extreamly offensive to a very large group.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironically, when I proposed a broad liberal arts curriculum in Middle School, it was heavily criticized, not least by you, Edgehopper, for being too broad and too focused on the liberal arts.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, being accused of lacking experience, education, and foresight because of my age is not being taken seriously. Being seriously means your ideas are judged independently of your age, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical handicap or anything of that sort (I saw that bit in the Oxford University nondiscrimination policy and thought it was wonderful.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The objection, if I recall correctly, was not that your curriculum was too broad -- it was that it focused on liberal arts at the expense of other subjects.
I agree about a liberal arts curriculum. I agree that teachers and parents should be afforded a degree of blind authority in the eyes of children. I just don't think that we can wave away the scads of inadequate teachers and parents and the plight of their children, especially considering parents and teachers disagree within each other. Managing this authority is a real thorny problem that doesn't go away.
Pel,
You have a smarmy tone that doesn't help your case. It's not because you are young or bright. If you want to know, Kasie H was younger than you are and smarter than you are and her incisive points were treated with the utmost respect because she was pleasant whereas you come across unctuous and self-pitying.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may come as a surprise to some, but, in many countries, university student cannot change their major. Thus, they are expected to enter a university with a clear idea of what they intended to do. If a British student can do this, so can an American student. Indeed, in countries following a European model, such choices are made closer to fifteen than eighteen. I am sorry if this fact does not fit into you preconceived notions of reality. We constantly underestimate ourselves and others because of it, the point I tried to make in my "Education in a Culture of Mediocrity" thread.
These are also societies that place a much lower value on social freedom. I assume we're talking about American schools here, and American culture places a much higher value on personal happiness than most others. It's right in the Declaration of Independence
But seriously, what makes these other university systems more admirable than ours? The top research universities in the world are still primarily American, and while the American secondary school system is below average, the American university system is considered the top in the world generally (yes, specific foreign universities have some specific better programs, but generally, America is the place to go for college.)
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
" it was that it focused on liberal arts at the expense of other subjects." Such is the nature of a *liberal arts* curriculum.
". I agree that teachers and parents should be afforded a degree of blind authority in the eyes of children." I find the idea of any amount of blind authority given to anyone repulsive.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ironically, when I proposed a broad liberal arts curriculum in Middle School, it was heavily criticized, not least by you, Edgehopper, for being too broad and too focused on the liberal arts.
That wasn't a liberal arts curriculum, that was a mishmash of pet fields. A liberal arts curriculum at the very least has to include a substantial writing component. If you go back to my post, you'll see that my main thematic criticisms were:
1: Too little writing 2: Too much "putting the cart before the horse"--giving kids subjects without the necessary prerequisites 3: Not broad enough (not enough breadth of literature, no music or P.E.)
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
In years at Hatrack, I have never said anything to Hobbes or :Locke or JuniperDreams to the effect that they don't know what they are talking about because they are (were) young. Let me explain why I feel it is necessary to say it to you.
I don't have a problem stating a thesis from a position of partial ignorance. That's a perfectly reasonable starting point for a discussion. And when you started these five discussions, I engaged you, and took you seriously, in each of them. I did not criticize your writing style. I explained why I disagreed, and waited for your rebuttals.
When I argue from a position of partial ignorance, and listen closely to the opinions of experts. I don't necessarily change my beliefs, but I try to either find ways that their observations can fit my worldview, or perhaps temper my worldview so that it does not contradict the facts.
In the course of these threads, you have stated that the perspective of adults is flawed because we don't know what it is like to be students and kids. That's absurd on the face of it--of course we do. You have not even addressed our experience--well, except when you tried to lecture me on what my daughters are and are not capable of.
I have borne your insults with a fair amount of good grace, actually.
You think I am insulting you because I point out what you do not know. I thought you were opposed to the School of Self-Esteem, that told people they were accomplished whether they were or not, but apparently you are only opposed to other people being treated this way. For yourself, you desire the coddling.
I'll try . . . I just don't know if I have it in me . . .
Goooood Pelegius! You're so smart! You're so brilliant! Yes, everything should be just as you say!
Hmm . . . how's that?
You've been told over and over that you're a smart guy, but all you perceive are the insults. You've been told over and over how to be taken seriously, but all you see is attacks.
Half of your posts don't defend your curriculum, but instead dismiss other people's criticisms.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I wasn't taking offense. I am a kid, and I know I might not have as much experience or education as my parents, but they won't always know what's best for me. Yes, this might be true for lots of other kids, but you can't say we don't ever know what's best.
Posts: 1164 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may come as a surprise to some, but, in many countries, university student cannot change their major.
I studied in Ireland, Pel. Over there, your major is chosen for you based on your performance in secondary school. Students that excelled in mathematics were accepted to mathematics programs at university, and could attend for free. Students that excelled at language were accepted to language courses at university, and could attend for free. Students who excelled at everything were accepted to Trinity, and could attend for free.
There was no choice in the matter - you were either accepted to a program at a university based on your high school performance, or you didn't go to university at all.
You had no choice in the matter at all. In my experience at the University of Galway, this did not improve the quality of student at all.
But, of course you knew this.
And of course the idea that people change careers is still left unaddressed.
And of course most of the points made by professionals in the field of education in both of your curriculum threads have gone unaddressed, too.
That is, of course, because you only reply to comments you perceive as attacks. Does it surprise you, then, when people attack you? It's the only time they get a response.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Icarus, being accused of lacking experience, education, and foresight because of my age is not being taken seriously. Being seriously means your ideas are judged independently of your age, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical handicap or anything of that sort (I saw that bit in the Oxford University nondiscrimination policy and thought it was wonderful.)
Not at all. You were taken seriously: I addressed your ideas. I also explained what my expertise is, because it's a valid consideration.
Being accused of lacking experience and education is not any kind of attack, it is an accurate representation of the facts. You wish to be told you have experience and education? ::scratched head:: What kind of world do you live in, where what actually is doesn't matter as much as what you want?Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't think that we can wave away the scads of inadequate teachers and parents and the plight of their children, especially considering parents and teachers disagree within each other. Managing this authority is a real thorny problem that doesn't go away.
Agreed, completely. But I thought this was a discussion in an "ideal world" where we assumed that kids had access to qualified teachers. The problem you mention is an even bigger one than curriculum, and requires a much trickier solution.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Such is the nature of a *liberal arts* curriculum.
Perhaps I should have stated "it focused on *specific* liberal arts at the expense of other subjects."
I understood Edgehopper's post to mean that students should be educated in the liberal arts in middle school, but other subjects should still be required.
Students need liberal arts, but your examples (Art History, Latin, Human Geography, etc) are very specific parts of a liberal arts education.
quote:Icarus, being accused of lacking experience, education, and foresight because of my age is not being taken seriously. Being seriously means your ideas are judged independently of your age, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical handicap or anything of that sort (I saw that bit in the Oxford University nondiscrimination policy and thought it was wonderful.)
People see great logical gaps in your ideas, Pel, many of which seem to lack certain understandings about the nature of the average student, the average adult, and the requisite skills needed for life.
The appeal to your age is an effort at giving you the benefit of the doubt, that it is only through lack of years (not intelligence) that you are not making sense. If you were 35 and making these statements, we would assume you were totally disconnected from reality and lived in a bubble.
Your statements are idealistic in the extreme and do not take into account the realities of life. They are based on things you have read about life in other countries, often romanticized, and not on actual experience. We hope this is due to your age, and that as you progress through life you will start to understand the complicating factors that make your ideas so implausible.
We are optimistic, otherwise we'd just call you a crackpot and have done with it. (Believe me, I'm close.) You are not a crackpot, you are just ignorant to many realities that experience will bring to light.
There are many people here worth learning from. They have experience in their fields, and have brought a lot of that experience to discussion with you. They take your ideas seriously enough to try to help you refine them - by providing you with their experience to supplement your own.
You deny all attempts at this.
Yet, you constantly appeal to the works of older people you have read, to the work of people far more experienced in the ways of life than yourself. You value the opinions of older people you read in books, but not the opinions of older people that speak directly to you.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: Icarus, I wasn't taking offense. I am a kid, and I know I might not have as much experience or education as my parents, but they won't always know what's best for me. Yes, this might be true for lots of other kids, but you can't say we don't ever know what's best.
To be clear, I didn't say that kids don't ever know best.
I'm glad you didn't take offense, because I really don't want to offend you.
There were plenty of times--as I've noted yesterday on one of Pelegius's threads, even!--when the academic advice of my parents turned out to be mistaken. And, no doubt, lots of places where my perceptions are off as well (though I obviously won't see them unless someone beats me over the head with them!) However, for me to have decided, as a teenager, that my perspective was equal to that of my father--who spent thirty years as a high school and college teacher--would have been foolhardy. His advice, imperfect though it may have been--was based on a more complete view of the total picture than I had as a teenager. But sure, there were times when I was right and he was wrong. I never said it doesn't happen.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being seriously means your ideas are judged independently of your age, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical handicap or anything of that sort (I saw that bit in the Oxford University nondiscrimination policy and thought it was wonderful.)
Yes, except...when experience is valid evidence. To take it to an extreme, would you consider age irrelevant when discussing euthanasia, just because you as a 17 year old wouldn't want to live life severely disabled? I'd think the experience of those who have lived with a serious handicap is worthy of consideration.
Your ideas aren't wrong because they're proposed by a 17 year old, and in fact some of it is right (for the most part, I like your proposed science curriculum.) But the experiences of a 23 year old (me) and older folks (Icarus, I think) are certainly relevant to the discussion, as are the experiences of people in fields outside of ancient Greco-Roman history.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't think that we can wave away the scads of inadequate teachers and parents and the plight of their children, especially considering parents and teachers disagree within each other. Managing this authority is a real thorny problem that doesn't go away.
I agree.
-o-
I teach in a community where a lot of British immigrants live. Why would someone move from England or Scotland to the US? Believe it or not, for the education. I know, it runs contrary to everything that people read about how much the US educational system sucks, but what we do here, or what we attempt to do here, is provide the opportunity for higher education to as many as possible. That's why we have lower scores in many measures--we don't only have our elites in the mix. I won't deny that there are pitfalls in this approach--the culture of mediocrity Pel alludes to in his other thread can be blamed on this approach. The suffering that many smart people on this forum have endured at the hands of jealous peers who resented their success can also be blamed on this. But don't hold up the British system to me as some shining beacon of what education should be like, because I have taught too many kids who came to the US because they were being taught nothing over there, because it had been decided in elementary school that they were not worthy of higher education.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet, you constantly appeal to the works of older people you have read, to the work of people far more experienced in the ways of life than yourself. You value the opinions of older people you read in books, but not the opinions of older people that speak directly to you.
You don't have the qualifications, FC. You need to state them explicitly in order to carry any weight. Proof of IQ, degrees with applicable GPAs, awards, pay stubs, and/or proof of authorship in a scholarly publication will be required before Pel (or I, or anyone) will take you seriously.
posted
I think this forum should require new applicants to attach a scanned copy of their MENSA cards to their profile.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
