pulled from Icarus' thread on cheating. I didn't want to break off into a tangent from that discussion, but something really stuck with me from there:
quote:Originally posted by AC: In my civilian life, and in my military (reserve) life, I haven't used anything I learned from nonmilitary schools past 7th grade or so. At that time in my life, I would have attended school even if not forced because I believed it when I was told that this knowledge, or at least the skills developed in attaining that knowledge would be invaluable later on. So far that has not been borne out.
This got to me a bit. What got to me is that is just how I felt up until I hit about 32 or 33 years old. Up until that time, I pretty much had the same attitude. Sheesh, I never used most of the stuff they told me I had to have to make it in the world.
And then one day, it dawned on me: They don't teach you that because someday you might need it. They teach it to you because someday you should use it.
To use a carpentry metaphor, it's like grade school gives you a hand saw. High school gives you a electric table saw.
Then it's your choice when you go about building your house (your life), you can spend all day pushing and pulling that hand saw, hopefully making a straight cut. Or you can set up the table saw, make your marks and rip all the lumber you need quickly and accurately.
Me, I screwed up and thought that I was in sync with the world when I found the opportunities offered to me required the hand saw more. I didn't realize the opportunities that the work at the table saw would offer. I just had to set the table saw up myself and get to work.
Basically, if you take what life hands you, the seventh grade education will be sufficient. If you want more from life, you have to take the later education and put it to work for you.
(I may have just muddied the waters horribly here.)
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
You put that very nicely, I think. I can't really add anything but my agreement.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Sopwith, that was nicely put. I was bothered by that particular passage too.
I think that it's very possible that we underestimate what we learn in those years. I know for a fact that I use quite a bit of the math that I learned in high school, most especially logic. The single most employable skill I learned in my teen years was typing -- a high school class.
I felt, reading that passage, that it's not only what you make of what you learned, but it's also impossible to really estimate of what value an education might be, since you can't go back an undo what you learned. It may not feel like you've really used it, but IMO, experiences teach us far more than we consciously think they do.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I know I was much more emotionally ready to learn and apply myself once I got to college. In high school I did learn things, but there was definitely a difference in my maturity level. I know I would have gotten quite a bit more out of high school if I had been at the point where I wanted to learn.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I am against High School.
In talking to my grandmother I learned that until recently (baby boom generation or so) high school was just that...high...as in higher education. Most people didn't bother, they went on to their apprenticeship for their carrer. Many went to work for their family bussiness.
I hated high school. Year after year they taught the same boring drivel, boring drivel that has not helped me as of yet (I am only 25). I mean sure, typing class has been invaluable, but I would have learned that one way or the other.
I have never had call to use my higher math skills, Geomitry, Trig, Calc, Physics, all unused. I'm not particularly angry that I have those to fall back on in case I need them, but seriously, does everyone need to know this stuff?
Most of the history classes I took taught the names, dates and places, but never taught why it was important to know. How does this effect my life now? I've always been facinated by history (not wanting to redo the blunders of the past and all) and love to watch the history channel, but what I receaved in HS was crappy. And why does an average citizen need to know the date that Bonaparte lost at Waterloo?
I spent most of my HS carrer in the computer lab, and because I did, I had skils when I graduated. Skills my classmates did not. Skills that have kept me afloat in life.
Is all this genneral education nessessary?
Please forgive my spelling errors, heh...kinda ironic actually.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Geomitry, Trig, Calc, Physics, all unused. I'm not particularly angry that I have those to fall back on in case I need them, but seriously, does everyone need to know this stuff
No, not everyone needs to know higher math and science, but if you ever hope to get a science degree at all, you certainly do.
I never used higher math at all from the time I graduated from high school until I went back to college when I was about 33. Since then, I have used it daily. You never know when you might want to make a change in your life, and then you'll be glad that you have at least an acquaintance with math and science.
A bit of a personal note, when I went back to school at 33, I was in a stable marriage (I thought) and had no idea that within a few years I would be divorced and have to provide for myself and my children. Because I had a science degree, I was able to get a well paying job that doesn't require any physical labor. I set my own hours, work at my pace and have very little oversight from supervisors.
My mother was also a single mother, with just a high school diploma (not because of lack of ability, just lack of opportunity and a very different social structure). She worked LONG hours, for very little pay and was on her feet all day. I'm very grateful for my education that keeps me from that fate. And without at least an introduction to math and science in high school, I certainly would not be where I am today.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Forgive my being snarky.
I think this kind of says it all.
quote:Please forgive my spelling errors, heh...kinda ironic actually.
What you failed to learn in high school was not a use for specific dates in history or the periodic table, but a general love of learning and a sense of pride in using what you know.
Case in point about the spelling errors. If you know you are a bad speller, you spell check (I know, not foolproof but it would have caught most of your errors) and you could have at least read back over your post to see a few of them. It is not so much that you spelled things wrong either (although that IS a problem); it's the fact that you knew it and didn't care. As a middle school language arts teacher, that just disgusts me. It is also a little scary considering, despite my best efforts, there are kids who go on to 8th grade not knowing nearly enough to get them by in the world.
Another example along those same lines... There is someone I work with who is on a level above me and he makes those same types of errors and some that are even worse in public memos and emails. He is well over 25 (in his 40's I'd guess) and has a college degree. He has given Powerpoint presentations and has asked the staff to complete numerous forms that are FILLED with obvious errors in spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. I don't mean that he left out a comma here or there or missed a letter or two while typing quickly (as we are all prone to do). I mean that he used the word JESTER when describing a nice GESTURE and I am not sure he can write a complete sentence to save his life. He has access to spell check and is computer savvy enough to use it. He has plenty of people who could edit his writing before he sends it out into the world but he doesn't ask. He just doesn't care. Since he doesn't care about this, most people feel that he doesn't care about much of anything and no one relies on him to do anything. In fact most people can't stand to work with him (me included) and he is often the brunt of jokes among the people who work under him.
Even though he is in the education field, he doesn't seem to value education and it makes him look like an idiot. So when you poo-poo your high school education and misspell words in every sentence, you are hardly making your case.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Every sentence?
Golly, it seems to me I had 9 misspelled words.
Mostly I didn't spell check it because it's FUNNY. In the ammount of time it took me to type "Please forgive my spelling errors, heh...kinda ironic actually." I could have spell checked it. But then it wouldn't be funny. And gesh, I may have misspelled bussiness, but you still know what I meant.
But what should I expect from a teacher.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So now you've graduated from not funny to rude.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
dkw, I agree but what do expect from someone who didn't care that they graduated from high school.
Besides, I am not insulted that he would expect that from a teacher. Most teachers are more irritated by apathy than ignorance.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Geesh...I am sorry if I offended you. I mean, I know it wasn't hilarious, just mildly amusing. Call it self depricating humor.
But isn't the point of communication to get your point across? Were any of my nine spelling errors so greivious that you couldn't understand exactly what I was saying?
I just don't like the idea of "I don't like how you said it, so I'm not going to address what you said" argument.
Oh, and by the way, when I do anything for work, or writting, or anything that is important, I do spellcheck.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: In my civilian life, and in my military (reserve) life, I haven't used anything I learned from nonmilitary schools past 7th grade or so. At that time in my life, I would have attended school even if not forced because I believed it when I was told that this knowledge, or at least the skills developed in attaining that knowledge would be invaluable later on. So far that has not been borne out.
Actually, I view this as a horrible indictment of our military, rather than a slam on the education system.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote: Oh, and by the way, when I do anything for work, or writting, or anything that is important, I do spellcheck.
Good to know
I did address your point though, not just how you said it. I thought how you said it showed how ridiculous your post was.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
High school for me was hell. I was teased from preschool up until I...graduated. I never had a senior year, only half of my jr year. My graduating class was 50, lived in a small town. When I moved back to SoCal at the age of 17, I took the California High School Proficiency Exam, which is legally the same as a diploma in the state of California and effectively tested out of HS. Later I went to join the Navy, and they said I needed a diploma. So I talked to the home school which told me about the CHSPE, and got my diploma.
Forgive me if oppressive group rule, popularity contests and superfluous, boring, and repetitive learning, required by law soured me to school in general.
Post Script: I spell checked this post and corrected the three errors.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
LOL! good boy!
I am sorry for your crappy high school experience. It is not like that everywhere.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'd also like to note that I am currently enrolled at ITT in their computer drafting and design program and start classes the fifth.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I'm not a scientist, and yet, I use algebra and physics all the time. Algebra is extremely useful in everyday problem-solving life.
Granted, I was an accountant, so a lot of times I used algebra there, but I also used it in everyday normal stuff like shopping and such. Figuring out how much to pay the fishmonger when he tries to cheat us with his poor math skills that always seem to be in his favor.
Now that I'm a writer, I still use algebra and physics and all that stuff.. Granted, I write science fiction, but I still need to use algebra to figure out when and where this group would catch up to this group, and how far behind the hunting party is, and how many hours behind this group, and so on. If my math skills were really bad, my story wouldn't be logical.
But then again, I always was odd. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, excuse me, but figuring out how much to pay the fishmonger is not algebra, it's arithmetic.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
It is here. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quid
SW, I spell-check my posts because I consider conversations here to be "[some]thing that is important." In this medium my words ARE me. So I polish them.
And I too am sorry you had such a bad high school experience. But that certainly doesn't mean that in general high school is bad or useless. It doesn't even necessarily mean that yours is, or that you didn't gain all sorts of skills and knowledge that you just haven't had a chance to use yet.
Or more likely, that you use all the time without even realizing it.
Good luck at ITT. And maybe you'll join us at a Shinda sometime.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not trying to be argumentative here or anything, but Algebra wasn't mentioned because I do use it. I guess a point that I did not get across is that I think that highschool should have some job training, some more practical classes and less "general" education.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't use a lot of what I learned in high school either, but that doesn't mean I would take it all back if I had the choice. I loved high school. It serves many more functions than just pounding useless drivel into your head.
First of all, did you know before you went into high school what you wanted to do? Maybe your answer is yes, but for many people it isn't. I went into high school wanting to either be a geneticist or a veterinarian, but left firmly wanting to be a high school history teacher. Many of my friends went in wanting to be something they dreamed of as a child, then discovered something entirely new in high school and decided to pursue it.
They don't give you physics because they expect you'll have to know it in everyday life, they give it to you to see if you are good at it, and if you might want to pursue it as a career.
Furthermore, your social skills develop rapidly in high school. It's a big world out there, a far cry from the generation or two before us who could get by with skipping high school, marrying a family friend and pursuing a trade. It doesn't work like that for the majority of us. It's fast paced, and if you want to even get your foot in the door, high school provides a lot of the social grounding to need to function in the world at large. Also, if you have any dreams of pursuing higher education, or higher higher education beyond that, you need high school. Even if you test out, that isn't going to help your writing skills for essays you'll have to write. You need time to develop that.
High school in general is necessary, though I think many revisions are necessary as well. The curriculum should be accelerated in the younger grades, and broadened in high school. Kids in Japan and Europe are thought of as smarter, but that isn't because their capacity for intelligence is naturally higher, it's because their curriculum is far more challenging.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I think one can't debate the usefulness of high school in general simply because everyone's experience is so different. Not just in terms of "every person is unique." Comparing my high school with the one 10 blocks away, it is obvious that someone going to a very exclusive, academically rigorous, independant school with a maximum class size of 18 is going to get something different than someone who goes to a public high school whose more difficult academics come from structured AP courses in classes of 30.
The question I think needs to be asked is "what would make high school useful?" I won't pretend that I'm qualified to give an answer to that, but I did find high school very useful (note that I graduated this past June, so it is possible that another couple years will change my mind).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I can agree with you, Stone Wolf, to an extent. Not all students need to be taught all the things every high school student is required to be taught. There should be an option, somewhere, to choose to learn a trade, though the public schools that offer such programs are becoming scarce.
Does every student need to learn Algebra II? It's a tricky question.
On one hand, no, they don't. Many facts and processes learned in high school are stored away and never used again (such as the quadratic formula, or what a cotangent is). There is a segment of the student population who would benefit far more from a well-designed auto-shop program, or other trade school equivalent.
On the other hand, speaking more as a teacher, it's not really about the content knowledge. It's about training your brain to think in different, and often uncomfortable or challening ways. Teaching yourself how to follow linear steps, and to interpret graphs and data, exercises certain thought processes in the brain. Even if the content itself is not used, the patterning and ability to think linear/mathematically remains.
As a side note, if your history teacher just taught you places and names, he or she should be fired, in my opinion. That's not history, and that's not teaching.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Is all this genneral education nessessary?
I believe it is, actually. I view high school as more of a sorting ground than a place of higher education. In high school, I and many of my friends were able to determine what we liked, what we were capable of doing - and what we didn't like and what we weren't capable of doing. There were those who learned that perhaps post-secondary education wasn't for them, and I found that if I achieved anything less than a doctorate, I would be sorely disappointed.
You mentioned that you believe high school should be job training - what about for those who enjoy learning these supposedly pointless topics? Or for those who don't know what job they want to have? The system of self-discovery through a directed course of study allows children to learn what they want to do - and, more importantly, what they don't want to do. To deny people this opportunity would be to deprive society of well-informed, self-aware citizens.
High school is a place to discover yourself, and while it is mired in the hopeless cesspool of cliques and stupidity - so are all children, and sadly, so are many adults. What high school offers in this respect is a platform for learning how to deal with these people in later life. Perhaps it is not the job training you meant, but it is certainly more applicable - and quite possibly more useful - than most job training which exists.
Personally, I had the time of my life in high school. It's rare, but hopefully not as rare as it seems. I learned about academic topics, and about personal ones as well. High school afforded me the opportunity to do this in a safe setting where I wouldn't be cast afloat with no resources, trying to discover what exactly I wanted from life. For me, high school was about choices.
I made the right ones from everything I learned. I can only hope everyone else has too.
Posted by elviiis (Member # 7382) on :
KOM - I argue that all arithmetic is algebra, but not the FOIL-quadratic equation-graph this parabola algebra they teach in HS. Arithmetic is applying Field axioms to real numbers. When someone multiplies 45 and 13 in their head, chances are they do 45*10 + 45*3, making use of the distributive axiom of Fields.
I always thought that HS was so unlike real life. I was wrong. Although now I have more bills to pay, I still have to turn in assignments on time and deal with irrational cliques. As before, some assignments are cool and others suck. Except instead of grades, I get raises.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
If you want to get a good overview of the history of public schools in the last century, read Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms by Diane Ravitch. It was fascinating to see all of the changes that have been made to public schools. It certainly reinforced my desire to homeschool, although that was not the aim of the book. But that is a different topic altogether, so I'll leave it alone.
--Mel
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How about a poll?
What percentage of your high school education (sports, social activities, clubs, etc included) has been useful to you in your life directly?
44%
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Frankly, I thought high school was terribly boring and not particularly useful (for me) -- so I left early and headed off to college. It's not a common choice, but by no means unheard of.
I believe high school is useful to many people in many situations, but what it lacks most is flexibility. I had to put a great deal of energy into fighting through the bureaucracy to get my early diploma, but it's something that, IMHO, should be encourages in any child wishing to pursue it, whether they want to leave for college or an apprenticeship or the army or what have you.
Likewise, I believe it would benefit from more flexible curricula -- my school allowed for something like three elective credits over the student's four years, with everything else pre-set. I agree that high school is valuable in that it exposes students to many topics that they might choose as something of interest, but why physics, biology, and chemistry over sociology, archaeology, and psychology? Why three years of American history over a wide ranging of times and locations (okay, this may have just been my school)?
Obviously there are resource problems in teaching a truly broad curriculum, but I think high schools could benefit by, say, developing closer ties to their local community colleges.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
StoneWolf, how would we judge percentages? I mean, if I hadn't had high school biology, I might not've been interested in statistics because I would've viewed it as math instead of as a practical tool. My interest in statistics got me my job in transportation.
Likewise, I took a creative writing class in high school from which I learned about poetry other-than the rigid structures and rhyme schemes that I thought it was supposed to be. That made me a better writer because I could pay attention to the rhythm of the words. And it expanded my vocabulary.
So I write better than many of my colleagues. That has helped in my career too.
I took an art class because the teacher was hot. I learned something about composition and conveying meaning in a picture. Today I have to display data graphically. Did my adolescent interest in the female form (of my art teacher) lead me to create better charts for a technical audience?
And what percentage of "contribution" would I put on these things?
I had an English teacher I hated until one day we had a pun fest in the middle of class. Today (for better or worse) I enjoy punning in the middle of the most serious occassions and I'm told my meetings are at least "interesting" and usually productive. Is that one day of that class worth a semester's worth of hating every assignment? to me it is.
What can I tell you but I find value in everything and every experience.
Perhaps the problem wasn't your high school, but your attitude about learning and experiencing things.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
I had the opportunity to graduate a year early, but I turned it down. There were a ton of elective classes that I hadn't been able to take for the first three years that I took all at once my senior year. Most of my classmates only took a half day of school their senior year (allowed if they had enough credits to graduate), but I took a full day: psychology, drama, and theatre production were my electives that year. High school is a great chance to take classes for free before you get into the real world of having to pay for everything. I know that some high schools don't have the budget for electives, but many still do.
--Mel
[EDIT: add calculus to my list of senior year electives. I knew there was another one. I took five years of math in high school but only four were required]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:On the other hand, speaking more as a teacher, it's not really about the content knowledge. It's about training your brain to think in different, and often uncomfortable or challening ways.
I agree with this completely.
quote:Perhaps the problem wasn't your high school, but your attitude about learning and experiencing things. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also agree with this completely.
Yes, there were things about high school that sucked. I hated the popularity contest stuff and the cliques and I thought that sitting through a boring economics lecture and dissecting a cat would never, ever be of any use to me.
And yet, looking back, I can see the things that have been posted here - while I may not use the exact facts I learned there, I do use my brain every day in ways that challenge me and I think that being forced to analyze things and think differently about problems in high school is part of the reason. And yes, the stupid cliques and the social pressures and the ridiculousness of high school social structures was also of value. I didn't know it at the time, but the teasing I endured helped me grow. It has made me a better parent, because when I see my children struggling with things I struggled with at school I can advise them and help them.
I do think, however, that perhaps we keep kids in high school too long. I really like the new dual enrollment programs that allow kids to take college classes while still in high school. I knew one girl who graduated from high school and was already a college sophomore.
I'm torn because I'm not sure if sixteen, say, is mature enough for college life but I do think most college-bound sixteen year olds are capable of handling freshman college coursework.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: I believe high school is useful to many people in many situations, but what it lacks most is flexibility.
I am a registered Libertarian. What wrankles me is that school is mandatory. Often times you can not choose which school. Home school is now common, and that's great, but it wasn't always the case, nor is it always viable.
I would like to see HS have a broader field to choose from. If you are college bound, here's a program for you. If you want to balance your check book and would like some job skills, here you go.
One of the foundations of Ender's Game is that children are people too. They often deal with just as much of life as adults do. For those who found school a positive experience (and I admit freely that there is enough good at schools to have one) I'm happy for you. For people who's formative years are spent unhappily, studying obscure grammatical rules, or higher math that they knew they would never use, or the tormented, the children and teens who go through school isolated and ridiculed school can be a very bad place.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote: Perhaps the problem wasn't your high school, but your attitude about learning and experiencing things.
Bing! *touches nose and points to Bob*
I agree with all the benefits of learning (which I said in my first post) but I also think that high school is a time for maturing and a place to make mistakes when grades are the only thing being counted. Think over all the stupid things you did in high school. If you had gone straight to job training or a career, making mistakes like that might cost you a job. High school is a time to learn from your mistakes. Certainly this doesn’t apply to everyone as people mature at different rates but still…
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
While I agree that for some students, a vocational curriculum would be more beneficial than an academic curriculum, I think there would be numerous problems with offering the two side by side. Say you've got a kid who has never attended a decent school and is horribly ignorant. "Helpful" administrators or counselors would probably send any kids like this off to vocational school. But who knows how many of them would actually prefer an academic curriculum if they had a chance to try it out. That is what the public school system is supposed to be: an opportunity for every child, regardless of background, to have a chance at an academic education.
There was a period in the history of American schools where vocational tracks were very popular in public high schools. And do you know what happened? Poor and minority children were being shunted into those tracks without even a chance at an academic education (the so-called college-prep courses). After all, few of them would be going to college, so clearly they did not need to prepare for it! (rationalized the counselors who sent them off.) This of course was a self-fulfilling prophecy: those who did not prepare for college were less likely to go, and more likely to drop out if they did try to attend.
I think that vocational schools are a good thing, but they should not be affiliated in any way with public academic schools. And for the most part, they aren't any more. Public high schools should do their best to educate the students that come to them, and not try to decide who is going to college or not.
It would be nice if students were allowed the choice to disenroll from high school and go to a vocational school instead, as long as it is the student's choice. But it has become such a social stigma to not finish high school that I don't see that being a viable option any time soon.
Sorry for the length of the post, but with five teachers and retired teachers in my immediate family, education is an important subject to me.
--Mel
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
My high school did, in fact, offer a vocational track, and most of the low-income kids were shunted into it. Once in, it was very difficult to shift out.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm curious about this word "shunted." Are people saying that there was active discrimination and that the school administration had a policy of steering otherwise bright minority candidates into a non-college prep track based solely on ethnicity?
Or are you making an observation that the voc-ed classes had a higher proportion of minority students than did the college prep classes (and that the ethnic mix was reversed in the college prep classes)? Which could happen for a number of reasons other than active or even passive discrimination.
Especially if there was an element where the students were given choices. As they were in my high school.
btw, my mom was first a voc-ed teacher and then started an OTJ grant-funded program at the county level that was quite successful in preparing kids to earn a living upon graduation. Given that at least one of society's goals for its education budget should be turning out contributing members of society, it seems like vocational education shouldn't be just a special case kind of program in schools, but a routinely available thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Interesting contrast here with the Norwegian system. Our high schools are divided into two parts : There's the academic line, which gives you 'study-competence' (I don't like the word in Norwegian either) that you need to enter a university. Then there's a bunch of vocational lines : Carpentry, pre-nursing, electrical, etc. (Off to one side a bit are the music and sport lines, which give study-competence but also have a strong component of athletics or instrument-playing.)
Now, the vocational lines start out fairly broad, and specialise as the student gets older; you might start out with a rather general 'electrical studies' and decide in your third year what kind of electrician you are going to become. Also they have a reasonable amount of theory; to the point, in fact, that many of the students taking them complain that they want to learn practical things, curse it!
The interesting thing about the vocational lines, though, is that they are quite difficult to get into. There are only so many apprenticeships going, and so the vocational schools can only accept so many students. The academic lines, on the other hand, accept pretty much everyone - for you have, by law, a right to three years of high school. The vocational schools, with their number of places limited by apprenticeships, are one thing; they can pick and choose the most motivated students. But the academic lines have no such limitation, and are forced to accept anything breathing! The result is that the academic lines have two kinds of students : The motivated ones who want to go on to college; and the ones who couldn't get into a vocational line, and are marking time until they can find a low-paid job at a McDonalds.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Our system is designed with the goal that every student should succeed and graduate high school with eyes toward completing college. No teacher wants to see a student of theirs fail, and we revel in the successes of motivating poorly performing students to succeed.
Not to be cynical, but is this realistic? To expect every student to be college bound? To expect every student to succeed? Not to leave any children behind?
Not really, no. But, on the more cynical side, it's not really practical either.
What would happen to our society and economy if every single person did achieve in high school and get a college education?
It's not a matter of "who would be our garbage men and fast food workers" - that's easy. They'd all be college graduates.
What would happen is that a college education would become as meaningless as a high school education is now. You can't really get many jobs these days with simply a high school diploma - everyone wants college, or at least some college. It's even slowly getting to the point that you need graduate school in order to get or keep your job. (as it is in education)
It seems a bit naive to think the world would be a better place if everyone graduated a four year university. Yet, this is often the goal of our educational system.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
FC: where do you get the idea that our system is based on the assumption that every student is college bound?
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:I'm curious about this word "shunted." Are people saying that there was active discrimination and that the school administration had a policy of steering otherwise bright minority candidates into a non-college prep track based solely on ethnicity?
I'm not saying that this happened everywhere, but it did happen. And the kind of vocational schools I was reading about were nothing like what KoM described. They were low-level training for low-level jobs. I can't give any concrete examples because I checked the book out of the library and so don't have it in front of me. I actually think that a system like KoM described would work much better.
It used to be that only children of nobility were given the opportunity to learn reading, writing, history, languages, etc. The public school system was meant to give every child that opportunity, regardless of economic background. Those who weren't interested in learning that could drop out after a minimum amount of schooling. But the minimum keeps getting moved higher and higher, and the options for those who don't want an academic education aren't that great.
The Norwegian system sounds very sensible, in that it offers high-level apprenticeship type training for those who are more interested in learning a trade than becoming a scholar. There may be some places in the United States that have similar systems. But I doubt that there are many.
--Mel
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm... this is about like making an assertion without backup source documentation. I mean, did the author of the book you read do actual research or was it more of a politically motivated treatment? Was it case studies or controlled investigative research?
Guess I'll have to check out that book sometime.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:My high school did, in fact, offer a vocational track, and most of the low-income kids were shunted into it
quote:I'm curious about this word "shunted." Are people saying that there was active discrimination and that the school administration had a policy of steering otherwise bright minority candidates into a non-college prep track based solely on ethnicity?
I'm curious how "low-income" turned into "minority" -- I admit there's a fair bit of overlap, but conflating the terms entirely seems to be worrisome in all sorts of ways.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
I was going to say that it was mostly case studies, but then I realized that I'm not completely clear the difference between that and controlled investigative research. Could you give me some examples?
The book was intended as a historical account, so I don't find the lack of formal experimentation to be troublesome. There were numerous primary source citations, so I felt fairly confident about her research abilities. The author pretty much kept clear of "this is good or bad" and mostly reported "this is what happened." Of course I made my own decisions as to whether things I read about were good or bad. Some of the things she mentioned were familiar to me from my own school experience, but I don't give that much credence because that is only four years at a single high school in the United States.
I found the book through one of OSC's reviews. Let me go see if I can find a link to it.
--Mel
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Here it is. It was easier to find than I expected.
--Mel
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, I found it and the reviews did make it sound like a fairly well done piece of historical research. Some panned it for not really going into enough detail on current debates/issues, but then others talked about how much of the stuff that happened in the early 20th century was being repeated today and isn't that interesting.
Thanks for pointing to what promises to be a good read.
quote:I'm curious how "low-income" turned into "minority" -- I admit there's a fair bit of overlap, but conflating the terms entirely seems to be worrisome in all sorts of ways.
good point. I did indeed read that into the two posts that used the term "shunted" and only one of you used the term minority.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Stone Wolf seems to have missed the original intent of my post.
I spoke of how in my twenties I felt much like he/she did: that what I had endured class-wise in high school just wasn't that useful in every day life. The point to be made, however, was that in my thirties I realized that those who get ahead in life are those who put those "useless" subjects to work for them.
Basic reading, writing and arithmetic is useful and necessary in our society and one must have it to simply survive here. However, if you want to succeed, you have to take what they taught in the higher maths, sciences, foreign languages, English, art and put it to work for you. Proactive rather than reactive. Otherwise you're just leaving the professional tools in the tool box untouched.
Bob is a shining example and I thank him for sharing it. He could have just gotten a job washing dishes at the Red Lobster and had the skills to keep his rent paid and figure out a bus fare budget. Instead, he took those skills (and others learn from much higher education) and invested them fully into his life and career. He has taken the tools out of the box, even some he might not have before thought were particularly useful.
I think Bob started with a whole lot more wisdom than I did and he sure has a wonderful amount of success and respect from the world to show for what he is doing with it.
Stone Wolf, you might want to pay attention to that.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:However, if you want to succeed, you have to take what they taught in the higher maths, sciences, foreign languages, English, art and put it to work for you. Proactive rather than reactive. Otherwise you're just leaving the professional tools in the tool box untouched.
I agree but I think the problem with high school is that, in giving students these tools, it also unintentionally teaches students to not want to use them. When I was in high school I learned that math was boring, reading and writing was work, history was unimportant facts and dates, science was not applicable to my life, and so on and so forth. I never really enjoyed a novel until after I had escaped high school, and the attitude that reading was an assignment to be done.
Instead, the lesson unintentionally taught by high school is that knowledge is just an obstacle that you need to give over. Read this book, pass the test, and you have overcome the obstacle - no need to remember any of it. Do this experiment, get the results the teacher wants, and you have overcome another obstacle - no need to really learn anything from it. Do your work, pass high school, graduate from college, and then you are done with knowledge - no need to actually value it or take it with you. High school is a factory, with raw students coming in, useful adults coming out, and content serving only as part of the process in between. The final product is all that really counts, right? This is the message that high school sends: learning is an obstacle on the way to adulthood.
Thus, I don't think it should be surprising that not many view the tools they get from high school as useful. They never really get taught that those things are tools (unless colleges succeed in getting that particular message across.) Instead students leave with the idea that those were just hoops they had to jump through.
I think teachers and administrators do everything they can to avoid this message, but it seems to happen anyway. I'm not sure why or how to fix it. I do think that colleges do a much better job at it though, for whatever reason. Colleges really do a lot of what should happen in high school.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sopwith, bugger your "original intent of my post" This is a discussion and that's exactly what we have been having.
I am so tired of "make the best of it". Sure, I took away tools, tools I use to this day. But seriously, with the money we spend on school (money -I- get removed from every paycheck although I have no children, let alone children in public school) I think I am on steady ground when I say that education needs some sweeping reforms.
Good for Bob for making the most out of his school experience. But that doesn't make ours a good system.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote: I spell-check my posts because I consider conversations here to be "[some]thing that is important." In this medium my words ARE me. So I polish them.
OK, I'm sure that this will sound ignorant, but that is only because I AM ignorant. How do you spell check your posts prior to posting them? I just keep a dictionary handy to look up tricky words. Is everyone else using a better (or more modern) method?
quote:I had an English teacher I hated until one day we had a pun fest in the middle of class. Today (for better or worse) I enjoy punning in the middle of the most serious occassions
So now we know whom to thank. Or blame.
quote:Interesting contrast here with the Norwegian system. Our high schools are divided into two parts : There's the academic line, which gives you 'study-competence' (I don't like the word in Norwegian either) that you need to enter a university. Then there's a bunch of vocational lines : Carpentry, pre-nursing, electrical, etc.
Not to argue with the Norwegians ('cause where would THAT get me?), but I object to the idea that Nursing is a vocational field. While true that certain specific skills are necessary, critical thinking and a firm grip on pertinent knowledge are a good nurse's greatest assets. After high school, I went on to college and earned my baccalaureate degree with a dual major of English and Psychology. I later decided to pursue a different career, and went back to college to earn my baccalaureate degree in Nursing. The Nursing program did involve vocational skills, but the program was more academically challenging than my earlier degree. Philosophy, logic, math, statistics, biological sciences, chemistry, and an ability to read critically, write competently, and participate in and analyze scientific research are all important to the education of a nurse. And I think that this goes beyond what is called "vocational training".
I'm just a little touchy on the status that folk accord nurses.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: OK, I'm sure that this will sound ignorant, but that is only because I AM ignorant. How do you spell check your posts prior to posting them? I just keep a dictionary handy to look up tricky words. Is everyone else using a better (or more modern) method?
SpellCheck.net It's free, it's easy, fun? Not my kinda fun, but useful.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Sopwith, your original post was brilliant. In England, there's a big problem with under-education. People leave school at sixteen, especially if there's no tradition of education in their family. They simply don't understand that having that extra knowledge can not only make it easier for you to get a job, but also for the world and people around you. Your wider knowledge can make the world more interesting, if, as Sopwith said, you proactively apply it. If you are interested and engaged with the world, then you will be happier and busier.
I agree that many high schools teach boredom. However, I do not agree that because they teach boredom students should leave with only technically useful bits of information they will use every second of their waking lives. The "irrelevant" knowledge is very important. What you learn in High School and above is not just "tools" (which is basically the reading, riting and rithmatic idea) but also how to, if you are attending any school but the most abysmal, use your brain and think.
Stone_Wolf_, I believe education is important. Everyone who can should finish high school, however much it bores them. It is all fine and good to say you'd have been happier ignorant until you get a nation full of ignorant people in a world that is steadily requiring people to know more and more about the science of their world, the technology of their countless devices, and the history and geography that shapes the way people interact with each other and the earth. If you are not using or enjoying what you have learnt at any and all stages of your schooling, it is unlikely you are really taking part in being part of the local, national or global community.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:(money -I- get removed from every paycheck although I have no children, let alone children in public school)
So you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it? If everything worked that way, I wouldn't have to pay Medicare taxes, Social Security taxes, and I could pick and choose which taxes I think I should contribute to.
It's sort of a dead end argument.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Teshi, how does "education needs some sweeping reforms." = "you'd have been happier ignorant"
Does not compute.
Lyrhawn, I disagree 100%, but this is not a discussion of tax reform.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Meh. Everyone else was doing a good enough job refuting your position, I didn't want to clutter the thread any more than it is. In a broader sense though, the money spent on school is directly related to the usefulness of school, which, being the title of the thread, I'd think funding would be part of the discussion.
But I'll let you get back to your regularly scheduled arguing.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
"I am against High School." =, to me, "I'd have been happier ignorant."
I reacted more strongly to your post than I usually would have. I'm a big believer in education.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I did say pre-nursing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote: I spell-check my posts because I consider conversations here to be "[some]thing that is important." In this medium my words ARE me. So I polish them.
OK, I'm sure that this will sound ignorant, but that is only because I AM ignorant. How do you spell check your posts prior to posting them? I just keep a dictionary handy to look up tricky words. Is everyone else using a better (or more modern) method?
Woe is me! I have clearly been falling down on my job as Official Hatrack Promoter of Spellcheck!
No, wait. I had a thread on the topic just the other day. Here it is.
Thanks, rivka. The toolbar is up. I'll probably still keep the dictionary nearby, though. For years and years, since I was a girl, I've loved browsing through the dictionary. It's done wonders for my vocabulary, but, unfortunately, hasn't helped my spelling all that much.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*nod* I like reading the dictionary too. I get Merriam-Webster's word of the day via email. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Oh, good golly, another one of us!
So, what's your favorite dictionary?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
One Look (which is technically a whole lot of dictionaries, not just one )
Also, WHAT are you doing up this late?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Bob, as to the preparation for high school comment, it is deeply ingrained in our educational system.
Constantly, as teachers, we are told that all students can succeed. All students can be A students and go on to higher education. All students should be expected to perform at a high level.
If students are not performing, it is the teacher's job to find what style of teaching best suits the student and modify instruction to make sure that student succeeds. It is not acceptable for a student to fall behind or fail.
At the middle school level where I teach, this is in constant preparation for high school - so much so that the concern is "how well will they be prepared for the higher level material next year".
At the high school level where my roommate and friends teach, the focus is on college preparation. Algebra II is stressed more now - because it is a part of the SAT. Other subjects are modified and adjusted so that students can pass the HSPA and SAT with high scores.
If you asked them, I think very few high school teachers would say that they are teaching toward a terminal high school degree - that's not the goal. They are teaching to prepare students for the next level - certainly if you are talking about junior and senior year teachers.
Students who don't go on to college, or who drop out at age 18, are considered to have "fallen through the cracks" - somehow the system failed them.
Schools brag about the percentage of their students that attend 4 year universities, and that attend 2 year colleges. High school guidance counselors can quote you those stats from the tops of their heads, while sitting in their offices lined with college pennants and scholarship information.
It is clear that the expectation is that all students go on to college - though that is not reasonable. In fact, the expectation that all students need this college preparatory high school experience is a bit unreasonable, as well.
There should be an option for students who are more technically or vocationally minded - those who would benefit far more from classes woodworking and carpentry, or heating and cooling systems, or any other professional prep track.
Unfortunately, many of these programs have been removed from public schools because the insurance costs are too high, or because budgets call for more computers and lab equipment at the expense of these "lesser" "elective" programs.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: One Look (which is technically a whole lot of dictionaries, not just one )
Also, WHAT are you doing up this late?
I like the OED for sheer erudition. And the Random House Unabridged for reading pleasure.
And what am I doing up so late? Posting on Hatrack. Duh!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The OED is great, but I don't have access to one. Isn't the online one subscription only?
My parent's RH Unabridged got read to death. I don't think they've replaced it . . .
I don't know about you, but I'm thinking of getting some sleep. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Regular, old-fashioned, paper-and-binding dictionaries are what I love. I have the compact OED -- the kind that comes with a little magnifying glass to read the microprint. But I don't use the magnifying glass. I don't even know where it is. I suspect that the kid took it to school one day and never brought it back. I've got super-reading vision. I read the compact OED bare-eyed. (as for distance vision, well, my glasses are pretty thick).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Even the compact OED is rather expensive. And when I was a student and qualified for the student discount, my means were more limited.
I may get it someday for the geek cachet. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I almost bought one in England when we were there, but they spelled a lot of the words wrong.
I was shocked.
And, I think they must've stopped including the geek cachet with it. At least the ones I saw just came with the dictionary itself and no other add ons.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I have one too, Shvester! Let's be friends. I have to use the magnifying glass, though. It hurts my eyes to read text that small.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
A friend and I were talking about the state of education in the U.S. a few days ago. He is from a different country and said, "You people get to vote for the leader of the most powerful country in the world. You have the largest nuclear arsenal. The rest of the world wants you to care. The rest of the world wants you to vote. The rest of the world wants you as educated as humanly possible"
You need history to understand where other countries are coming from. You need some appreciation/understanding of scientific method to understand what the ramifications of laws are. In this world you are no longer an effective citizen if you can't understand what lawmakers are having to decide. It used to be that understanding where a bridge needed build or where the new road would go was enough. That day is gone. And I know that high school sucks, and I know that it can be boring. But think of it as a duty in some ways. Think of it as helping the children that will come after us.
Okay this thread just really frustrates me and I could rant for hours. But I'll try to refrain.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Education benefits all of society. Think of tax money going to education as an investment--those kids will be paying more tax in the future if they all have good jobs.
Refusing to fund public education because you don't have children in a public school is extremely short-sighted, in my opinion.
The problem with education reform is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what education is for. Is it to produce better people? Better workers? Better citizens of a free country? Is it to baby-sit children to keep them out of trouble? Is it primarily to find and educate the best and brightest? Is it to teach people to think? To fill their heads with facts? To teach them skills?
As a motivated student, I'm sure that I would have benefitted from an opt-in system of education. Class sizes would be smaller. The pace would be quick. There would probably be more opportunities for special projects and more engaging means of learning material.
However, as a member of a democratic society, I want everyone around me to be as educated as possible, whether they want it or not. I want people to be able to support themselves and their families, for their own good, and for the general good.
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
There was actually a really interesting letter in the Times today about this. Basically, the writer made the point that there has been a generational change in education in the UK such that many students now undertake vocational education and less emphasis is placed on general education and learning for its own sake. He quoted his younger brother as saying "you got a real breadth of knowledge out of your secondary education, all I got was a career." I think it's really important that we don't just give students a career. I don't know what it's like in the States, but in the UK there has recently been a shift of emphasis in education. The focus is now a lot less on "are we covering the National Curriculum?" and more on "is every child achieving their full potential? Is every child enjoying their school life?" To that end, chalk-and-talk lessons have almost entirely gone out the window, and a much wider variety of teaching and learning styles are used. It doesn't work all the time, but every now and then you do teach a really exciting lesson, and the students learn something of value and enjoy themselves at the same time. It just needs to happen more often, for more students. I think as we learn more about how the brain works and how people actually learn, as we are able to match our teaching to students' individual needs more, and as teachers are trusted as professionals and interfered with less, things will get better. There are systemic issues, of course, and the preoccupation with exams is definitely one of them, but I am on the whole optimistic about the future of education.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
quid![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I have clearly been falling down on my job as Official Hatrack Promoter of Spellcheck! ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)