I absolutely agree. Who needs art, athleticism, or a fundamental understanding of our physical world?. Just teach me how to work a broiler and pay my taxes -_-
Real learning is something that I never achieved in middle school or high school. It was only when I started attending college classes that I was given the tools and incentive to learn. Here, it's not so based upon your ability to memorize facts and spew them back out at a teacher - it's about connecting what you are taught with what you already know to produce new knowledge, understanding, and insight. Now that I'm actually learning every day, school is probably my favorite place on earth.
Oh come on Marc. Don't be so erational. I see where you are coming from, though. Very much so. I would love to have more schools where you can pick subjects though schools are set up a certain way for a reason. A reason I already stated.
> why is stuff like science a mandatory class over something like > cooking. Now don't get me wrong science is cool to learn but why > in the world is it mandatory! It does nothing to prepare you for > your future unless you are planning to be in a science based > field. Well, you'll use science if you're going to be a scientist, engineer, nurse, dietician, Extreme Cleaning Specialist (yeah, I've been watching Hoarders), farmer, homebuilding contractor, landscaper, veterinarian, architect, child care provider, electrician, florist, pharmacist, doctor plumber, phys ed instructor and many other kinds of teacher, coach, social worker, commercial cook, perfumer, fabric artist, many other kinds of artist, many kinds of small manufacturer, and dozens of other professions. Or even just to competently manage your own home vegetable garden. And that's ignoring the "soft" sciences like psychology, which you'll need as a marketer, teacher, and a variety of other professions, including parent. It's also ignoring things like statistics, which again are used for a variety of other professions. And knowledge of the scientific method has the potential to apply to anything. You don't need _all_ of the scence that is taught for _all_ of those professions. But it's not the school's job to say, "Well, Jane says that she wants to manage a commercial kitchen. So we'll teach her about sanitation and the development of bacteria in food, and in math we'll teach her accounting, and nothing else. She's fourteen; there's no chance whatsoever that she'll change her mind about her future career. There's no chance that she'll want to _own_ that kitchen someday and analyze patterns in her seasonal business and analyze her investments. There's no chance that she'll someday want to release a food product commercially and have to understand marketing statistics and psychology - and the science of preserving food. Never gonna happen. We've decided exactly where her success will stop, and we're not going to give her the tools to take her career beyond that point." You see the problem? Now, plenty of people perform elements of the professions that I list without having taken an official science course that addressed that profession. But they are _using_ science, and not having a base education in science will be an obstacle likely to lead to them using it badly. That doesn't make middle school and high school science education any less boring. I remember it as incredibly boring. But the ideal solution, IMO, is not to eliminate it, but to make it a little less boring. I found Mendelian genetics incredibly dull when applied to what color someone's children's eyes could be. As an adult, I read a book on plant breeding and they became fascinating, when applied to the possibility of breeding my own, better, fruits and vegetables. For me, a school garden could have been a center of countless learning experiences in science, math, art. So could a school kitchen. Would others have found that dirty and icky? Is there any way to make science more interesting for a larger percentage of students? I don't know. > Things like car repair (not all of it just like oil and > tire changing), cooking, balancing your check book should all be > mandatory. I'm not saying that car repair shouldn't be available, but I'm not seeing it as an essential life skill. Most towns have someone who offers this as a service. We could argue that everyone should know how to change a tire, change their oil, sew their own clothes, build a fire, split a log, make a batch of pickles, deliver a baby, and butcher a chicken, (I think I'm paraphrasing Heinlein here), but there are skills that our society has accepted that not everyone needs. I'd say that a person who knows no car repair is far less hampered than a person who knows no science. (And, knowledge of science would produce a better mechanic; really, I should have included mechanics of all types in my list of professions above.) I'm more with you on the checkbook. Balancing a checkbook is applied math; I see no reason why it couldn't be included in a math course. I suppose that the problem is that it's fairly basic arithmetic, so the age at which it would be a learning experience for math is an age long before a child will have a checking account. But I could certainly support the idea of a "mock economy" in an elementary school classroom, complete with budgeting and a checkbook. And maybe a refresher in high school, as part of a must-pass life skills class. (One that also includes a demonstration of exactly how much that TV costs after it's bought on a credit card making minimum payments.) Americans grow up with a lousy understanding of their personal finances, and of public finance, and that _is_ a skill that everyone needs. > Most of Math after middle school is almost pointless, unless you > plan on majoring in a math field. Who is going to use Alerbra in > your life unless your majoring something that requires it. I needed algebra yesterday: If cooking 2/3 of a cup of couscous requires 1 cup of a cup of water, how much water does half a cup of couscous require? That's a simple algebra problem: X/.5=1/.666 X=(1/.666)*.5 X=.75 I could accept the argument that few people need calculus, but algebra is still well within the realm of math that many people need. Yes, a cook could be given a formula just like my middle formula above, and told exactly how to do conversions by rote, without understanding the algebra. But, again, it's not the school's place to decide that the cook will never be anything but a cook, or that his cooking will never encompass more complicated conversions, like substitutions of ingredients with other ingredients of different volumes. And it's not just mathematicians that need math higher than algebra - many people in science, engineering, and probably other areas that are slipping my mind, will need it as well. > This last part may have just been my experice but it feels like I > keep learning slavery and the civil war constantly. Did anyone > here ever learn about WW1 or Vietnam during there school time? I agree that my history classes seemed to start at the same point in history every year, and run out at roughly the same point every year. A deeper examination of a shorter period of history every year, and an occasional _very_ deep examination just to get that different learning experience, seems potentially useful to me. We definitely covered WWI - that was part of what was covered over and over. Vietnam, no; this was in the eighties, so perhaps it was seen as still too political. Maybe it still is seen that way. > Also should gym be mandatroy? I can understand why health, but > gym doesn't really prepare you for anything. Don't get me wrong > it's fun but it doesn't do anything for you. Yeah, I'm not going to be the person to defend gym. I actually do think that it would have been useful if someone had communicated a love of, or at least respect for, physical activity to me when I was young, and I think that it is appropriate for schools to do that. But gym certainly didn't do that job. Instead, it taught me to hide physical activity from the sight of others, because they'd mock me for doing it wrong. And for that matter, it (no doubt unintentionally) taught me that physical activity was all about teams, and that a loner had no use for exercise. I'd like to see schools incorporate _physical activity_ rather than requiring everyone to participate in a mishmash of random sports. For fifty minutes a day, you can walk briskly around the track, or dig in the school garden, or, yes, participate in sports if that's the physical activity elective you signed up for. Yeah, I know the arguments about teamwork, leadership, etc. But as an adult, most teamwork is going to be in a context other than sports, so it makes sense to me for most teamwork exercises to be about schoolwork, not sports. Or, hey, if you want (1) physical activity and (2) teamwork, then recruit a team to plan and set up that school garden. Teams in gym, and gym in general, feeds the least healthy elements - the bullying, the hierarchies - of the unhealthy school society. > I don't know maybe this is just unintellegient rant. Accepting that you might be wrong gives you intelligence points, in my book. > But it just > feels like school is only reaching to certain group of students > instead of the student body as a whole. We could be learning so > much more stuff but we are forced to learn almost useless things > day in and day out. Most of what you learn in school is not going to be _specifically_ useful. It's a way of getting you to learn and exercise a skill that you will probably exercise in a completely different way in adulthood. You're learning with "fake" problems that don't seem to have any relevance, but in many cases, the relevance is there in the skill that you acquired by doing the fake problems. Going back to the simple algebra problem, learning when the train will arrive on Saskatoon (or whatever word problems are taught) isn't specifically useful. Converting the couscous and water is useful. Learning that Little Janie can't have brown eyes because her parents had eyes of color X and Y isn't useful to many people. But that knowledge of gentics is useful to me as a gardener who wants to breed my own plants. It's useful to anyone who wants to breed animals. It's useful to many doctors. It's taught in one, really boring, generic way, and then that knowlege is useful in many ways. I'm not saying that every single thing you learn in school is going to be useful in that way - it's not as if the curriculum is created by people incapable of error. Odds are that that curriculum reflects a lot of people's pet projects and pet peeves, and that there are elements that are going to be useless. And there are even more elements that are going to be useless to _you_, because you're one person who's going to have one profession and one set of hobbies, and the curriculum is designed to prepare everyone. But I am saying that it's really hard to tell which bits are useless - and that a great deal is probably useful in ways that aren't obvious. > Anyone else feel as I do? You guys are welcome to disagree but if > you do disagree plese bring up a valid point. I'd also like to > here about if you guys went through any of these thoughts when in > school or now (if you still are in school) I didn't particularly question the value of what I was learning, but I was Oh My God So Very Very Bored in school, especially before high school. I was a smart kid - not a genius, but ahead of the class average, and that meant that what was being taught was usually stuff that I already knew, or stuff that I absorbed during the first couple of minutes of a several-minute explanation. I don't know what schools can do about that, with limited budgets and resources, but I do feel as if thousands of hours were wasted when I could have been learning more.
In high school, you're very poorly equipped to judge what you will or will not need in the way of knowledge for the remaining decades of your life. You have to be prepared not only for what you foresee now, but also for a rapidly changing world. You need to have strong and broad skills, and the ability to learn new ones. This entire rant is very disturbing to me, especially when a certain young woman was nearly assassinated by the Taliban for speaking up for the right to receive an education.
You and I are singing off the same hymn sheet for this one, Cog. If you get a free education with breadth and depth then you should feel yourself blessed. So many millions of people don't get the opportunity. However, I will say that it's pretty much every teenager who questions why they have to learn one subject or the other. 'We'll never have to find X when we're working,' was a common refrain around the maths classroom from year 9 onwards. But then it's part of the teenage makeup to question why they have to do something, or to not see a point in something else. What I can say is that if even if you don't see the point in subjects, you should work at them. Failing now doesn't even give you a chance to fail later - you won't have the grades to go on, and there will only be one person to blame.
Us in the western world take education for granted. We should all feel really lucky that we're entitled to, and get, a free education. I think schools focus on teaching people how to learn and develop key skills that you'll need. That's why they make studying a range of subjects compulsory. Obviously, it'll differ from school to school, country to country, but on the whole schools will allow you to learn lots of different things in different ways. It also helps you to discover what you're interested in, where your skills are etc. This range of education provides you with skills and the knowledge to succeed in later life. Everyone hates certain subjects and wonders why they have to do them. I didn't like science and I wasn't very good at it but I had to study it so I worked hard in that subject anyway. Similarly, I wasn't that good at maths but I worked really hard to improve and was pleased with my grade at the end. Speaking from my own experience, my school (which was a girls grammar school) made food technology (aka cooking) compulsory in years 7-9, along with three other design and technology areas. PE was compulsory. Having a range of subjects enhances your learning. Do you really want to spend all day sitting at a desk, staring at textbooks and whiteboards? PE was a nice break from it, even if I didn't like the sport we were doing. Similarly, that's what Design and Technology provided as well. It was compulsory to study two languages (either French and Spanish or French and German) in years 7-9. I liked languages and knowledge of languages is really a plus in later life. At GCSE, we had to take a subject from certain areas (at least one humanity, one language and one art/design/IT), in addition to the compulsory subjects, to ensure we had a range of knowledge, interests and developed the key skills. Yeah, most teenagers moan about going to school and what they have to study, but you'd be lost without that education.
The point really is that since school, quite rightly is compulsory, it should be fitted to the needs of the students. I don't know what it's like in USA but here in UK, we definitely put an inordinate amount of importance on academic subjects. Anyone who is not academically inclined doesn't really stand a chance. Where is the emphasis on the practical subjects? We are sending so many students to universities knowing that even though they may obtain first class honours, there are very few first class jobs out there. You don't need university degrees to build houses (I'm not counting architects, surveyors etc.) Yes, we do need the academics. But we also need those versed in the more practical areas - plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, mechanics - unfortunately some of these people spend many wasted hours at school trying to learn subjects they are not and will never be interested in. If school can be geared up to teach sciences, physics, history, geography, etc. why can't it also be geared to the more practical subjects? The argument that children should accept and be happy to attend school without any right of debate on the subjects they are offered, is faulted. Of course they should have the right - it's their future. It shouldn't mean 'shut up and put up - we make the rules, your opinion is not valid so keep it to yourself.' This girl was shot by standing up for her right to attend school. Of course she should have the right to schooling. But are you really suggesting that our own children shouldn't have the right to comment on their education.
Those exist as well, as an alternative to high school. They are caqlled vocational or trade schools. Because, as I mentioned above, students are ill-equipped to know what they will need in the future. You mention the trades (plumbers, electricians, etc.). The trade schools turn out enough graduates for those fields, and there is no shortage of tradesmen who complete their apprenticeships and go off on their own. In fact, their is a surplus in those fields, so those tradesmen have to consider other jobs. But they often lack the background in the basics to train for alternative professions. If you take a closer look at the current unemployment in the States, most of it falls into two categories: too many people competing for too few unskilled/minimally-skilled positions, and higher end professionals who are over-specialized. Society has a commitment to prepare our children for life. You may not think you will have any use for math or science or history. Maybe you won't. On the other hand, you very well might, especially if you require retraining for a new profession. If we don't educate our youth adequately, we have failed them in the worst possible way. And retraining is not just a myth. I've already changed professions once, from chemist to software engineer. The schooling I received gave me the basis to study on my own to make such a change smoothly. When they are prepared to make an informed decision. Given that they are permitted to opt for a vocational school instead of a full academic program, they do get to express an opinion. Education is the key that opens doors. Ignorance is an impenetrable wall.
Those exist as well, as an alternative to high school. They are caqlled vocational or trade schools. We don't have these. My point is that we (in UK) should have You mention the trades (plumbers, electricians, etc.). The trade schools turn out enough graduates for those fields, and there is no shortage of tradesmen who complete their apprenticeships and go off on their own. In fact, their is a surplus in those fields, so those tradesmen have to consider other jobs. But they often lack the background in the basics to train for alternative professions. Again, in Uk this isn't always the case. At one time school-leavers had the opportunity of apprenticeships in all the trades. Now there are few employers offering these. You may not think you will have any use for math or science or history. Maybe you won't. On the other hand, you very well might, especially if you require retraining for a new profession. If we don't educate our youth adequately, we have failed them in the worst possible way. I absolutely agree that it is our responsibility to educate our youth. I'm not saying don't teach maths etc at all - it's just that some children will never achieve high levels in these subjects whether through lack of interest or lack of capability. They are, at a very early age, on the outskirts of our education system. If they can't achieve the grades in the academic subjects they are practically dismissed. What I'm saying is that people are different and young children are people. Why can't all their strengths be encouraged. We applaud those who achieve high grades in english, maths, history, science etc. Why can't we respect those whose strengths lie in the more practical subjects? We are sending thousand to universities knowing that there will be a shortage of positions for them when they graduate. Yet employers tell us that they can't find enough skilled plumbers, electricians, builders etc. We have now started to build academy schools which are (supposedly) sponsored by local employers. The idea is sound. The object is to provide the skills that local employers need. But again, the curriculem is geared to the national academic requirements. There is little change in fact, but it sounds good! And retraining is not just a myth. I've already changed professions once, from chemist to software engineer. The schooling I received gave me the basis to study on my own to make such a change smoothly. Again, I agree. Many people retrain. Most of us learn more once we leave school than ever we do in school. And school does teach us how to learn. That doesn't alter the fact that a large number of children spend a proportion of their time at school being force-fed subjects they are neither interested in nor capable of doing - and this to the detriment of the subjects they could learn which would help them in their chosen career path. When they are prepared to make an informed decision. Given that they are permitted to opt for a vocational school instead of a full academic program, they do get to express an opinion. Again, I was talking about UK. What vocational schools? And I'm always wary of 'informed decisions'. I always feel that these are only valid when they agree with the opinion of the person who has been 'the informer'. Education is the key that opens doors. Ignorance is an impenetrable wall. ABSOLUTELY! ABSOLUTELY! All I'm saying is let's give ALL children the education that is applicable to their capabilities, their strengths and their desires, whether they have academic skills or practical skills. And, slightly different aspect to the same subject, let's value those amongst us who, while not the brightest star in the galaxy, do the jobs we don't want to do for a pittance, because we really do not value them. I'm talking - refuse collectors (doctors would be busy without them) care workers (we'd have to look after our own ageing relatives) bus drivers, shop workers, etc. Aren't they just as valuable to society as anyone else?
I remember, in high school, a display in the school library of some extraordinarily fine furniture created by a student, clearly demonstrating a rare talent. That student was going to get his high school diploma and then go on to apprentice to a carpenter. I considered this a success story, but I remember the teachers sneering because he didn't plan to go to college, and even complaining that the display space shouldn't have been used for the works of a non-college-bound student. I emphatically disagree with those teachers, and I do think that this is evidence of an excessive focus on academics. Sure, that student still needed what he was going to learn in high school. And, sure, if he had the career success that that furniture implied, he was hopefully going to need some education in accounting, investments, managing employees, and so on. But I would argue that in his case, the best choice was to focus on his woodworking talents first, and any missing academic skills second. I'm not saying that anyone here is necessarily going to disagree with me. i'm just giving an example of academic versus non-academic priorities. Edited to add: And I'd also argue that students have every right to gripe and nitpick about their education. That education should be teaching them to think, analyze, and question, and if they apply those new skills to the education itself, so be it. That doesn't mean that they get to unilaterally change the nature of education, or that they get to use classroom hours for that griping and nitpicking, but I certainly don't think that they should just shut up and stop questioning.
Right. Freedom of speech is paramount. Still, with that right, you have to own it when you make a fool of yourself. As Abraham Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." However, sometimes you get a better education from putting your foot in your mouth. Most people learn better from mistakes than from coloring inside the lines.
Don't mean to bump ancient threads but I'd honestly forgot this existed. It hasn't been that long in retrospect of course but three years is a lot of time to do some growing and a since I came across this on my profile, figured I'd take a look into the past. I'm bumping this as an overview of sorts or a "Chapter 2" as I was younger back here and was overly angry when making this. Flawed system or not, education and knowledge are our greatest tools and now that I'm out of school, living in my own apartment and just doing the life thing for awhile now it really all comes back to you. You might not remember everything....(Obviously) But it was an honor to just be able to have an education and meet some fantastic people. In hindsight the whole sha-bang from K-12 does a great job of getting you ready for life, maybe you won't use what they taught you everyday when you're done and heck you might hate it while youre going but the skills do come in handy. Either just because you learned them and are smarter for it or just because maybe you'll find a use for it later down the line. The social aspect and just interacting was great to. I don't want to go on some giant talk about the importance of each subject but yeah cherish what you learn and in fact hold on to those times that you spent as a child/teenager or heck the time you have now. They won't last forever. We all change as learn and grow and we become different people or at the very least more evolved of who you are and just because you finish school doesn't mean you should stop your education. College or not everyday, every book read, every person met, every year added is another thing to learn from and experience (good or bad). But yes you were all right and correct that education is something to be valued never called unimportant, every subject has their use and will serve to just make you more worldly. Thank you all for the comments and setting the angry abrasive teenager straight even if he didn't know it then. Annnnnd you all know that couldn't be resisted Was nice to read all old stuff again though XD
I have sometimes thought about this thread over the past year or so, and to be honest I forgot it was you who made it. I sometimes - honestly - wondered what happened to that guy who made that school rant thread all that time ago. Who knew he was hiding in plain sight.
Yep. And it's shit. I did COBOL at uni - 2nd year. And was adamant I would NEVER be a COBOL programmer. Absolutely no interest whatsoever. Failed it. Hated it. Ended up failing a fair bit in 1st and 2nd year uni, and doing more 3rd year subjects than I needed, because they were interesting, and varied enough you could get your teeth into something worth doing. We should be at school into our 30s. For free. Pursuing avenues of interest. With teachers passionate about the subject matter and capable of imparting that passion. I think I'll write a book about it.
This reminds me of a math teacher I had in high school. We always used to ask her, "When are we ever going to use this stuff?" And she would reply, "In two weeks, on the next exam."
English teachers don't have this problem. Which makes my job so much easier. 'Sir, when are we ever going to need Shakespeare?' 'Well, imagine you are captured by the Mafia, and they say they will kill you if you cannot list the names of the characters of Midsummer Night's Dream. Imagine you didn't stick in, you'll wish you had then!' '... what?' 'What?'
XD Well I was pretty pissed this day if I recall correctly but it escapes me what about nor do I remember being so dumb with how I worded things or spoke but oh well feels good to have grown up and changed me views. Maybe my next rant will be about living in an apartment building in a bad neighborhood. Really loud neighbors (Always fighting in the middle of the night or morning), no central air in this hot as hell summer(though I do have one air conditioner) and perhaps I'm simply being paranoid but I'm almost 90 percent positive that there is something dead in the backyard as there are on occasion hordes of flies all over. But hey place is really cheap XD So kinda hard to rant.
Well, in all fairness, the adults in charge of high school are hardly knowledgeable enough to know what would work best for all of their students on a personal level. They (hopefully) have a fair amount of general competence, but, like any human being, their training does not render them omniscient. The same goes for parents and other childhood authority figures. Of course, teenagers have somewhat lower average cognitive ability and considerably less experience than their masters, so the stereotypical rebellion can be just as problematic as mindless authoritarianism. High school is neither perfect nor useless, at least in a general sense. Our culture wants adolescence to fit into a neat, easily predictably chain of command, but it doesn't. It's a messy, painful process that makes a mockery out of almost any absolutes that we can devise.
Look, it's hard being bossed around by people without solid credentials, especially in the teenage years when you are questioning everyone and everything. It wasn't DOCTOR Smith in highschool. It was MISTER Smith. Well who the fuck are you, Mr. Smith, and why can't I call you John, when Dr. Smith in college four years from now is going to tell me to please call him John, and is never going to boss me around like you do, but treat me like an adult, even though he has more credentials than you?
I didn't realize how old this thread was as I read from Page 1. So I'm seeing all these members, thinking, "Who the hell is that, and how have I never seen them before now?" On the real, though.. I was forced to take a class my junior year of HS called Consumer's Ed, where all we learned how to do was balance a checkbook and write checks properly. It was only half a semester long (the other half was for Driver's Ed), but it was very beneficial to me. As an adult, I've always griped about what we learned/didn't learn it school. I'd have loved to learn about taxes in school. What the hell are they, and when do I pay them? Or even mortgages. Trying to buy a house when I've had zero training on the subject is the best way to give me a headache. I did take a cooking class in middle school, but it was middle school.. And I've since forgotten everything they taught me. lol I did, however, learn to sew, and I took well to that. Sometimes I wish I was smarter, more talented, and had a better education so I could go out and start all these companies that I think our country needs. lol I'd happily start a school that teaches basic life skills, alongside all the other required courses. Or start a cellphone company that lets you pick and choose what you want, instead of having to buy a package full of shit you don't need. 100 texts= $5, Unlimited texts= $20, 1gb of data= $10, etc. Could you imagine a build-your-own cellphone plan?? That'd be amazing! My current cellphone plan is 1000 text messages, 450 minutes, and 2gb of data. It's the smallest package I could get. And I probably use less than 50 texts a month, 200 minutes, and less than 1gb of data... So why am I paying $90 for this shit? Anyway. Off-topic. Just wanted to let you know... I feel ya, man. ETA: Just realized Virgin Mobile does the build-your-own cellphone plan.. And now I'm embarrassed.
