The Modern School System

[Ħ]

One of the biggest gripes I have about America is how flawed the schooling system is.  In public elementary, middle, and high schools, the goal of the administration is to 1) maximize attendance, and 2) maximize standardized test scores (like the STAR test).  Once you get into college, you pay ~$50k for an education (and growing), where the first year is high school review, and the rest you could just figure out on your own using public resources.  And if you are wise with money and choose to go to a community college (which basically will teach you the exact same things), you are somehow "less" educated than someone who goes to a 4-year university.

Not only that, but across the board the main method of "schooling" is assigning tests.  You fail a test, well too bad, the class is moving on, so I guess you'll just have to figure out the material you missed on your own.  What kind of "teaching" does that offer?  So.....tests need to die.  

Another thing is grade inflation.  I got all A's in high school and I barely studied, and it wasn't because I was smart.  I just knew how to take tests, which isn't really a valuable real-world skill.  I didn't actually understand 9.5/10ths of the course material (which is what an "A" implies").  If you understand 3/4ths of the material offered, you should get a C.  End of story.  None of this AP class boosting or bell curves or anything like that.  Makes people stupider in the long run and ruins work ethic.

What do you guys think are some good solutions to these obvious problems?

Here's what I think:

1) For elementary - high school.....eliminate districts.  Don't make it a competition between schools.  Have a nationwide criteria for available classes and curriculum.  Make school faculty official government employees, with set salaries across the board.
2) Some kind of test that measures self-education, that doesn't require a number of units/years at a school.  For example, if I read all about sociology, but I have never actually gone to college, I can just take a sociological aptitude test and get my diploma that way.
3) No in-class timed testing system.  It stinks.
4) Get rid of grade inflation and curves....just get rid of them.  Can't think of a simpler solution that that.

[Jamesman42]

One thing I have learned as a preprofessional teacher is that assessing students goes well beyond quiz/test scores, to informal assessment. Unfortunately, the recorded grade doesn't reflect that as much as it should. There is a lot of good education theory out there but it seems to buckle under the weight of government policies.

[73109]

The public school system is failing in that the goal of education is good standardized tests scores. That is the issue. Personally, I don't see you issue with testing testing. If you are in a class and you don't get the material and fail, damn straight you gotta suck it up and learn quick. And I think you are most definitely putting down what a college is for. College's job is to prepare you for a job in the real world, or depending on what you want to do, prepare you to prepare for a job in the real world. Also, your thinking when it comes to universities and community colleges is highly flawed as well. Harvard is Harvard because of its massive endowment which allows the university to pay insane amounts of money for the smartest teachers possible. Trickling down, that means better education for the students. What would you rather do, study under one of the premier experts in your major, or study under Joe-Schmo. The system is failing and it is because we no longer want to pay teachers so we get young and shitty ones. What we need to do is focus on teaching subjects and not teaching how to take standardized tests.

[orcus116]

Another thing is grade inflation.  I got all A's in high school and I barely studied, and it wasn't because I was smart.  I just knew how to take tests, which isn't really a valuable real-world skill.  I didn't actually understand 9.5/10ths of the course material (which is what an "A" implies").  If you understand 3/4ths of the material offered, you should get a C.  End of story.  None of this AP class boosting or bell curves or anything like that.  Makes people stupider in the long run and ruins work ethic.

Oh yeah this totally fucked me. When I started getting B's and C's in college my mom was baffled because I had like a 3.94 GPA in high school. A 93 in one of my HS classes used to get me an A and even all the way down to an 89 was an A-. Not knowing how to really study caught up to me big time.

[antigoon]

Another thing is grade inflation.  I got all A's in high school and I barely studied, and it wasn't because I was smart.  I just knew how to take tests, which isn't really a valuable real-world skill.  I didn't actually understand 9.5/10ths of the course material (which is what an "A" implies").  If you understand 3/4ths of the material offered, you should get a C.  End of story.  None of this AP class boosting or bell curves or anything like that.  Makes people stupider in the long run and ruins work ethic.

Oh yeah this totally fucked me. When I started getting B's and C's in college my mom was baffled because I had like a 3.94 GPA in high school. A 93 in one of my HS classes used to get me an A and even all the way down to an 89 was an A-. Not knowing how to really study caught up to me big time.

Same thing happened to me as well.

[73109]

I'm fucked in that department.

[Ħ]

Also, your thinking when it comes to universities and community colleges is highly flawed as well. Harvard is Harvard because of its massive endowment which allows the university to pay insane amounts of money for the smartest teachers possible. Trickling down, that means better education for the students. What would you rather do, study under one of the primer exports in your major, or study under Joe-Schmo. The system is failing and it is because we no longer want to pay teachers so we get young and shitty ones. What we need to do is focus on teaching subjects and not teaching how to take standardized tests.

Maybe for graduate school, but honestly, I could get the information required for flippin chemical engineering from Khan Academy for free.  The education (with all the pomp removed) is pretty much the same anywhere you go.

[ZBomber]

I can echo pretty much everything said in this thread. I really hate the schooling system, and it's quite depressing I'm wasting my life doing this when I could actually be learning something.

[blackngold29]

I cannot wait to see what happens to colleges over the next decade. I don't know how it's going to play out, but I do know one thing: They're fucked and that makes me smile. Unfortunately, I had to go through it and build up the debt like a lot of people. (I bet, you can tell how much I love going to school.)

There is also academic inflation on the higher levels, a degree used to guarantee you a job, now it doesn't. What needed a Associates Degree now needs a Bachelor's, etc. Some estimates are now saying that college is actually a negative investment.

In the lower levels, it's very much teacher's unions that are screwing everything up. If you haven't seen Waiting for Superman you should. And I agree a billion% about Khan Academy. Pretty much everything that is available from any college is available online, Khan has started to put it into a format that makes it digestible.

[TheVoxyn]

The schooling system here is a lot different and makes a bit more sense i.mo.. In high school you have three 'ranks' of education, over which students are divided based on a test they make when they are around 11 or 12 years old. The ranks vary in both education level and duration. It is possible to switch if your grades are sufficient. Once you complete the education (of either 4/5/6 years, depending on the rank/level) you can go to further education. Only the highest rank can go to university, which means universities don't have as much failing students and are seen as the 'elite' of education. The other two ranks also have education after high school of course, again varying in level.

All this division means that students are generally in a class with people that can handle the same level of education which means it's easier to educate a group. It also means that the main objective is to pass everything, not 'beat' your fellow students to show that you are somehow smarter than them.

[Adami]

Also, your thinking when it comes to universities and community colleges is highly flawed as well. Harvard is Harvard because of its massive endowment which allows the university to pay insane amounts of money for the smartest teachers possible. Trickling down, that means better education for the students. What would you rather do, study under one of the primer exports in your major, or study under Joe-Schmo. The system is failing and it is because we no longer want to pay teachers so we get young and shitty ones. What we need to do is focus on teaching subjects and not teaching how to take standardized tests.

Maybe for graduate school, but honestly, I could get the information required for flippin chemical engineering from Khan Academy for free.  The education (with all the pomp removed) is pretty much the same anywhere you go.

And how did you come to the conclusion that Harvard offers the same level of education as any community college?

[j]

With regard to college, etc, this is the way I've always looked at it.  I enroll in classes, and what I'm paying for is the grade: proof to future employers, graduate schools, or whatever that I completed the work or mastered the material in that course, etc.  I've had some great lecturers in undergrad, graduate, and medical school, but the majority are garbage.  I decided I could teach myself better on my own in many cases, so sometimes I'd stop going to class, show up on test days, and I did fine.

As an aside, courses that had mandatory attendance pissed me off for this reason: I'm getting nothing out of being there, but I'm required to be for the sake of some lame professor's ego.  Mandatory attendance should be abolished and disallowed past high school.

Point is, if you can teach yourself chemical engineering, fine.  But if you want to prove to somebody (an employer or another school or a pretty girl) that you've learned it, you're probably gonna need some accredited institution to back you up on that.

Anyway, I think there are a lot of other benefits to going to college, but I know it "isn't for everybody", as they say.  But even if you hate it, it's hard to argue against toughing it out to make yourself more marketable and give yourself more opportunities in the future, as well as the personal enrichment and experiences you're bound to have.

I won't get started on grade school, because I agree there are a ton of problems with the current system here in the US.  But I will ask what your alternative to standardized testing would be?  I'm with you that they can be somewhat poor instruments for what they purport to measure, but look at it from the side of the admissions people trying to evaluate applicants.  At some point, there have to be criteria they can use to start screening the huge numbers.

-J

[Sigz]

I don't see how it's possible to teach yourself an engineering discipline. Sure, you might be able to learn the theory on your own, but you won't be nearly as knowledgeable or competent as a graduate who's had three or four years of lab experience, design experience, time spent manufacturing, and perhaps most importantly instruction from experienced teachers - none of which you can get from some youtube videos and wikibooks.

[AcidLameLTE]

Stuff like this is why I'm glad my course included a full year work placement.

[YtseBitsySpider]

Seth Myers had a good line on weekend update last weekend, I can't remember it verbatim but essentially it was American schools were having some kind of a go outside and run day........"meanwhile kids in chinese schools.............were DOING MATH"

[AcidLameLTE]

They were doing maths.

[Implode]

Oh let's not start that.

[lordxizor]

Here's the biggest thing that makes the US education system worse than many other countries. Those other countries value education. Parents take an active role in their children's education and make sure their kids know the value of the ecuation they're receiving. In the US, too many parents leave education completely to the schools. They complain when their kids are given homework. They simply don't take an active role in their kids education anymore.

The over reliance on testing is bad, but wouldn't be as big of a deal if kids were interested in learning. Most kids simply aren't. This goes back to their parents and their upbringing in a lot of cases.

Another thing that I think would be good in high school is a "practical skills" track versus an "academic" track. Let's face it, many high school kids know they're not going to college. They're interested in things that don't require a college degree or simply don't want more school. Let these kids take classes that will help them in real life. Whether it's a skilled labor type of thing (mechanic, plumber, etc) or entreprenurial or retail or whatever. Real life skills will help them much more than forcing them to take algebra or chemistry. Those kids interested in going to college will take the academic route which would allow them to take higher classes.

[Ħ]

Also, your thinking when it comes to universities and community colleges is highly flawed as well. Harvard is Harvard because of its massive endowment which allows the university to pay insane amounts of money for the smartest teachers possible. Trickling down, that means better education for the students. What would you rather do, study under one of the primer exports in your major, or study under Joe-Schmo. The system is failing and it is because we no longer want to pay teachers so we get young and shitty ones. What we need to do is focus on teaching subjects and not teaching how to take standardized tests.

Maybe for graduate school, but honestly, I could get the information required for flippin chemical engineering from Khan Academy for free.  The education (with all the pomp removed) is pretty much the same anywhere you go.

And how did you come to the conclusion that Harvard offers the same level of education as any community college?

I think 73109 brought up Harvard specifically.  but just by communicating with students from other schools, and experiences different schools myself.....Physics 101 is Physics 101 no matter where you go, whether it be MIT, a community college, or the internet.

[lordxizor]

Also, your thinking when it comes to universities and community colleges is highly flawed as well. Harvard is Harvard because of its massive endowment which allows the university to pay insane amounts of money for the smartest teachers possible. Trickling down, that means better education for the students. What would you rather do, study under one of the primer exports in your major, or study under Joe-Schmo. The system is failing and it is because we no longer want to pay teachers so we get young and shitty ones. What we need to do is focus on teaching subjects and not teaching how to take standardized tests.

Maybe for graduate school, but honestly, I could get the information required for flippin chemical engineering from Khan Academy for free.  The education (with all the pomp removed) is pretty much the same anywhere you go.

And how did you come to the conclusion that Harvard offers the same level of education as any community college?

I think 73109 brought up Harvard specifically.  but just by communicating with students from other schools, and experiences different schools myself.....Physics 101 is Physics 101 no matter where you go, whether it be MIT, a community college, or the internet.

I'd agree that perhaps the first year (mayeb two) of general classes can be done anywhere, but I can promise you that the advance chemical engineering or classes I took (fluid mechanics, chemical process engineering, etc) and higher math classes (differential equations, linear algebra, etc) could not be taught at a community college or learned online.

[Durg]

I agree with some of the the things said in the thread about the problems.  Here's another one.  Our culture.  Seriously, I know this more than ever since hosting a 9th grade Korean exchange student this year.  Respect is interwoven into their culture and they do not question authority.  Discipline is a premium and the kids are taught at a very young age to work very hard to not be dreamers.  They build very left brained little kids to the point that they're learning math concepts years ahead of where we learn them.  My guy took pre-calculus in the 9th and was really board with it.  Next year he's taking AP calculus FOR THE 10th GRADE.  He says that parents are crazy when it comes to making their kids study.  He says they all want their kids to grow up to be doctors and lawyers and the kids must study until midnight most nights.  Sports?  Not important.  Art?  Waste of time.  Imagination?  Not accepted.  Music? Not so much but maybe some since it helps develop academic abilities.  More on that last point.  I have a co-worker who's wife is a private piano teacher.  He says almost all of her students are Asian.  Is it because the kids want to or are the parents making them do take them so help develop their academic abilities?

That's all well and good but they're also killing themselves at an alarming rate.  I haven't confirmed this but he claims that the suicide rate in Asians are now higher than the Scandinavians which always used to top that list before.  It's no surprise because these kids have no childhood. 

Keep in mind that this is all from the mouth of a 15 year old so I don't know if this is all totally true.  It might be only his perspective/world view.  However, there's no doubt that American parents, me included, put just as much value on imagination and creativity as all the other "left brained stuff".  The result may be poorer math skills in our national average.

[Chino]

In the last decade we have made astonishing discoveries about brain development. We now understand that everyone's brains develope at a fast rate. Lets say we have children 1 and 2. Child 1 can do math at age four, child 2 cannot. The children are now six years old. Child 1 and Child 2 now both perform about the same academically. Child 1 was no smarter than child 2, the section of the brain for mathematics may have just gotten a late start. I think the school system needs to do away with grades. Once a child get the material allow them to advance. Don't punish a child because he is being asked to do something his brain is not physically capable of.

[slycordinator]

I'd agree that perhaps the first year (mayeb two) of general classes can be done anywhere, but I can promise you that the advance chemical engineering or classes I took (fluid mechanics, chemical process engineering, etc) and higher math classes (differential equations, linear algebra, etc) could not be taught at a community college or learned online.

I don't think he was claiming otherwise. It's just that some people get the idea that only unintelligent people go to community colleges and that you get a bad education at one.

Also, I don't see why differential equations or linear algebra could not be taught at a CC. For one, CC's generally offer introductory courses in both; they're 200-level classes although some universities put an intro differential equations class as 300-level but it's generally the same. But even if you went into higher-level stuff, the people who teach at CC's would still be qualified to teach that material. The people teaching at CCs have at least a Master's degree and some of them I was taught by had their PhD.

[lordxizor]

Also, I don't see why differential equations or linear algebra could not be taught at a CC. For one, CC's generally offer introductory courses in both; they're 200-level classes although some universities put an intro differential equations class as 300-level but it's generally the same. But even if you went into higher-level stuff, the people who teach at CC's would still be qualified to teach that material. The people teaching at CCs have at least a Master's degree and some of them I was taught by had their PhD.

I would imagine the CC doesn't offer them simply because there's no demand for them. Unless you're going into engineering or mathmatics, there's no need to take them. At my university, they were at least 300 level, if not 400 level classes, don't remember exactly. I know they came after Calc 1 & 2 for sure.

[Ħ]

Also, I don't see why differential equations or linear algebra could not be taught at a CC. For one, CC's generally offer introductory courses in both; they're 200-level classes although some universities put an intro differential equations class as 300-level but it's generally the same. But even if you went into higher-level stuff, the people who teach at CC's would still be qualified to teach that material. The people teaching at CCs have at least a Master's degree and some of them I was taught by had their PhD.

I would imagine the CC doesn't offer them simply because there's no demand for them. Unless you're going into engineering or mathmatics, there's no need to take them. At my university, they were at least 300 level, if not 400 level classes, don't remember exactly. I know they came after Calc 1 & 2 for sure.

I know that Khan Academy has Linear Algebra and other upper div math.

[Jamesman42]

My college used to be a CC a few years ago and they still had linear algebra and differential equations...now they have the follow-up courses to those 2, plus number theory.

But there isn't a lot of demand for them.

[slycordinator]

Also, I don't see why differential equations or linear algebra could not be taught at a CC. For one, CC's generally offer introductory courses in both; they're 200-level classes although some universities put an intro differential equations class as 300-level but it's generally the same. But even if you went into higher-level stuff, the people who teach at CC's would still be qualified to teach that material. The people teaching at CCs have at least a Master's degree and some of them I was taught by had their PhD.

I would imagine the CC doesn't offer them simply because there's no demand for them. Unless you're going into engineering or mathmatics, there's no need to take them. At my university, they were at least 300 level, if not 400 level classes, don't remember exactly. I know they came after Calc 1 & 2 for sure.

Where I went to CC, calculus courses are in the 100-level and both linear algebra and differential equations were in 200-level. But like I said, lots of places put the equivalent course for diff eq's as being at 300-level.

But I was more responding to the claim that these courses "couldn't" be taught at a CC. Perhaps I was reading too far into how you meant it.

[lordxizor]

I mean't "coudn't" as in they wouldn't have enough of a market to teach them. Perhaps I chose some bad examples with those math classes. CC are generally known for lower level, intro courses and associate degrees. Not saying that couldn't change, but if it did I'd guess you'd see CC's shedding the CC name.

[slycordinator]

I was never saying "Community colleges give you equivalent to a 4 year degree."

People go there to get their associates and then most of them transfer to university and do the remaining 2 years there for their bachelor's but some people get this ridiculous notion that if you go to a CC for those first 2 years you're wasting your money and getting a bad education. Make sense?

edit:
[slight-OT]I was talking with someone not too long ago that was upset that her boss was refusing to give her a raise that he normally promised to people that obtained their bachelor's degree. I didn't really have the heart to tell her that it's because University Of Phoenix is a bullshit school.

[ricky]

I agree with some of the the things said in the thread about the problems.  Here's another one.  Our culture.  Seriously, I know this more than ever since hosting a 9th grade Korean exchange student this year.  Respect is interwoven into their culture and they do not question authority.  Discipline is a premium and the kids are taught at a very young age to work very hard to not be dreamers.  They build very left brained little kids to the point that they're learning math concepts years ahead of where we learn them.  My guy took pre-calculus in the 9th and was really board with it.  Next year he's taking AP calculus FOR THE 10th GRADE.  He says that parents are crazy when it comes to making their kids study.  He says they all want their kids to grow up to be doctors and lawyers and the kids must study until midnight most nights.  Sports?  Not important.  Art?  Waste of time.  Imagination?  Not accepted.  Music? Not so much but maybe some since it helps develop academic abilities.  More on that last point.  I have a co-worker who's wife is a private piano teacher.  He says almost all of her students are Asian.  Is it because the kids want to or are the parents making them do take them so help develop their academic abilities?

That's all well and good but they're also killing themselves at an alarming rate.  I haven't confirmed this but he claims that the suicide rate in Asians are now higher than the Scandinavians which always used to top that list before.  It's no surprise because these kids have no childhood. 

Keep in mind that this is all from the mouth of a 15 year old so I don't know if this is all totally true.  It might be only his perspective/world view.  However, there's no doubt that American parents, me included, put just as much value on imagination and creativity as all the other "left brained stuff".  The result may be poorer math skills in our national average.

Yeah, that kind of approach can't be healthy. I think a medium between the strict, left-brained approach and the creative, dreamer one would be the most effective. Albert Einstein is an example of that. He used a right-brained thought process to produce very left-brained theories - or at least some of them.

[Jamesman42]

I was never saying "Community colleges give you equivalent to a 4 year degree."

People go there to get their associates and then most of them transfer to university and do the remaining 2 years there for their bachelor's but some people get this ridiculous notion that if you go to a CC for those first 2 years you're wasting your money and getting a bad education. Make sense?

edit:
[slight-OT]I was talking with someone not too long ago that was upset that her boss was refusing to give her a raise that he normally promised to people that obtained their bachelor's degree. I didn't really have the heart to tell her that it's because University Of Phoenix is a bullshit school.

My CC changed to a state college and I will be getting my B.S. in math education. I don't think I am getting a bad education.

[Ħ]

To people saying that a 4-year university actually gives more education than a CC--even if it is true (which it might be for some majors) I don't think it's 50 times greater, which is what the price implies.

[Durg]

My CC changed to a state college and I will be getting my B.S. in math education. I don't think I am getting a bad education.

Math education is such BS.   

My computer science degree with BS. 

[Jamesman42]

Gee, thanks...

[AcidLameLTE]

Computer Science is fucking dire. Can't wait to finish this degree.