Educational Efficiency.

[Carry2]

"Muad'Dib learned rapidly because his first training was in how to learn. And the first lesson of all was the basic trust that he could learn. It's shocking to find how many people do not believe they can learn, and how many more believe learning to be difficult. Muad'Dib knew that every experience carries its lesson."
-Dune


I'm beginning to wonder if our educational systems (worldwide) couldn't stand some improvement in terms of efficiency. Since this kind of came up tangentially in another thread recently, I thought I'd give a brief run-down on the points that come to mind for me.


* Evidence for the effectiveness of homework in many subjects appears to be lacking. Finnland and Korea seem to have similar levels of educational achievement, and the Finns do a lot less homework.

* WTF is up with 40-minute class periods? For me, it was usually just long enough to get really stuck into a subject and then have your concentration broken.

* I remember, in College, that a lot of the lecturers would refuse to release their full lecture notes online because the students wouldn't show up in class otherwise. My basic attitude was "If you're not adding any value that isn't present in the online notes, something I can probably get from wikipedia for free, or a book for a fraction of the cost, how do you justify your ****ing salary?"

* This isn't to say that genuinely high-quality lecturers don't exist, particularly in the area of hands-on tutorials, labs and demonstrations. Indeed, high-quality teachers in smaller classrooms appear to be one of the more important factors in determining educational outcomes. (Personally, without naming examples, I'd be perfectly willing to give teachers a more competitive wage scale if I was also able to fire the incompetents.)

* There are certain subjects that you *have* to acquire basic proficiency in, because you need them to acquire further knowledge and function independently (math, literacy, rudimentary social etiquette, housekeeping/DIY, etc.) But having a wide range of compulsory subjects seems largely pointless. Aside from the rote regurgitation of facts, kids rarely retain knowledge of or interest in subjects that they didn't have some degree of interest in before.

* Adults seem to be under the impression that kids automatically learn stuff faster, but kids have far less discipline. And the reality of modern economies is that, in many jobs, you're going to have to retrain yourself every few years regardless. This idea of stuffing students' heads with a certain collection of knowledge, and they'll be set for life, is hopelessly outdated. (I reckon that direct training of techniques for self-directed learning- e.g, memory tricks, time planning, philosophy of science- might be useful in itself.)

* The emphasis of educational curricula is wrong for many students. A lot of people learn facts far more easily when they see some direct connection to practical applications of that knowledge. I think apprenticeship schemes with many industries or professions, and/or private-sector collaborations, need to start earlier and be better supported.

* What is up with all the textbooks? If you live in the western world, at least, odds are 9-to-1 you have access to a flatscreen device or laptop of some kind. And if you don't, schools could always give you a Kindle.

* If you spent less money trying to teach kids things that are likely to be irrelevant to their lives, and which they almost certainly won't retain, you should, in principle, have more money to spend on teaching subjects which do interest them. Hell, you could expand the range significantly- programming, economics, law, martial arts, exploration, etc. etc. etc.

* Remarkably few people seem to have consistently enjoyed school. I'm mystified that there isn't more pressure to actually overhaul the damn thing.

[THAC0]

I'm really not sure how in depth I can get into this topic within board rules. Suffice it to say that yes, I believe the current educational system is broken and no, I don't see it changing any time soon.

[Lentrax]

I agree that an overhaul is neccisary, but I can't explain why without breaking, at my count, all the rules of the board.

[Blue1005]

I agree, and Im happy you said worldwide without focusing just on one country. I have seen HUGE gaps in multiple educational systems, Especially the "TOP" in the world by most thoughts. If you wonder the one i mean look where I am...

[bluntpencil]

Right, breaking down your points, being a teacher myself:

1) Homework works. It helps to consolidate what one has already learned. The reason for the Finns having similar results to Koreans in spite of less homework is found in other areas, which I'll cover later.

2) 40 minute periods are actually the most efficient. It is near impossible to concentrate on something for longer, unless you find it exceptionally interesting or entertaining (See: video games and action movies).

3) Yes, lecturers should release their notes online, but perhaps password protect them. One of the reasons they don't is that they only want their own students getting their information, and nobody else. It is for this reason that tape recorders are sometimes banned too.

4) Re: Early apprenticeships. This can cause the unplanned effect of restricting peoples' options. Kids could be advised by their guidance counsellor to become an electrician's apprentice, when they really wanted to be plumbers. That could stick them into one career for a very long time.

5) Re: Textbooks. E-books and similar are being phased in gradually. As always, it starts at universities, as opposed to high schools.

6) Many schools worldwide are phasing in such new subjects, like economics and philosophy. However, some of these subjects would be considered something of a higher-tier than what one learns in high school. For example, studying Engineering would be impossible without having first finished high school maths and physics.

A personal note:

In many countries, rote learning and simple memorisation is used to learn things, as opposed to using proper understanding combined with intelligent study techniques. This requires a ridiculous amount of studying to succeed, and doesn't impart any understanding of the subject.

Furthermore, the use of rote learning requires the students be spoon-fed pointless facts by the teacher, which could have been just as easily lifted from Wikipedia. This reliance on spoon-feeding and uncreative learning leads to societies which are very easily controlled and, to some extent, are happily brainwashed and ignorant. The students are taught to think in a way which doesn't make use of any initiative or lateral thinking, leading to societies utterly lacking in dynamism.

Rote learning: Something a parrot can do. I hate it.

I would assume the Finns need less homework because they have more intelligent study techniques than the Koreans, generally speaking.

[Carry2]

I agree that an overhaul is neccisary, but I can't explain why without breaking, at my count, all the rules of the board.
Hmm. I guess I should have seen that coming. Well, it's nice to know I'm not alone in saying the system could stand improvement.

[Blue1005]

A personal note:

In many countries, rote learning and simple memorisation is used to learn things, as opposed to using proper understanding combined with intelligent study techniques. This requires a ridiculous amount of studying to succeed, and doesn't impart any understanding of the subject.

Furthermore, the use of rote learning requires the students be spoon-fed pointless facts by the teacher, which could have been just as easily lifted from Wikipedia. This reliance on spoon-feeding and uncreative learning leads to societies which are very easily controlled and, to some extent, are happily brainwashed and ignorant. The students are taught to think in a way which doesn't make use of any initiative or lateral thinking, leading to societies utterly lacking in dynamism.

Rote learning: Something a parrot can do. I hate it.

I would assume the Finns need less homework because they have more intelligent study techniques than the Koreans, generally speaking.



I LOVE IT! To be honest i was unaware of the name, but sing it firsthand really shows you how sad it is. Trying to get these kids to think is worse than death for most of them, no emphasis on the knowledge just the remembrance of. Ironically, as I type this, a teacher is next to me having a student parrot something...

[Killer Angel]

I also notice the tendence, by many educational systems, to focus excessively (or too early) on specializations. While this creates excellent one-trick ponies, this sacrifices general culture, lateral thinking and the ability to correctly interact with different disciplines.

[Carry2]

1) Homework works. It helps to consolidate what one has already learned.
Conceivably, but the amount seems grossly excessive in many cases. Once you grasp the principle behind, say, long division, 100 test problems won't be vastly more instructive than, say 10. At least, it seems that way to me.

2) 40 minute periods are actually the most efficient. It is near impossible to concentrate on something for longer, unless you find it exceptionally interesting or entertaining...
Yeah, but I'm kind of assuming that it's pointless to put kids through classes they don't find reasonably interesting in the first place.

3) Yes, lecturers should release their notes online, but perhaps password protect them. One of the reasons they don't is that they only want their own students getting their information, and nobody else...
But that only shifts the burden of proof from the teacher to the institution. If students could get as much of an education just from online notes as they could from paying for a course of lectures, again, how does the system justify it's costs?

4) Re: Early apprenticeships. This can cause the unplanned effect of restricting peoples' options. Kids could be advised by their guidance counsellor to become an electrician's apprentice, when they really wanted to be plumbers. That could stick them into one career for a very long time.
As far as I can tell, swapping careers a few times is something that you're likely to have to do regardless these days. And again, I don't advocate shunting kids into careers they have no interest in.

Sure, some kids don't have a clear notion of what they want to be when they grow up. But some do, and I just think it's counterproductive to artificially frustrate their desire to pursue it.

5) Re: Textbooks. E-books and similar are being phased in gradually. As always, it starts at universities, as opposed to high schools.
Good.

6) Many schools worldwide are phasing in such new subjects, like economics and philosophy. However, some of these subjects would be considered something of a higher-tier than what one learns in high school. For example, studying Engineering would be impossible without having first finished high school maths and physics.
Well, I feel that a less regimented approach to education might conceivably have certain students studying calculus before they even enter high school, and the basics of many subjects can be learnt without needing advanced math. (Plus, they could actually provide an incentive to learn said math in the first place.)

A personal note:

In many countries, rote learning and simple memorisation is used to learn things, as opposed to using proper understanding combined with intelligent study techniques. This requires a ridiculous amount of studying to succeed, and doesn't impart any understanding of the subject.

Furthermore, the use of rote learning requires the students be spoon-fed pointless facts by the teacher, which could have been just as easily lifted from Wikipedia. This reliance on spoon-feeding and uncreative learning leads to societies which are very easily controlled and, to some extent, are happily brainwashed and ignorant. The students are taught to think in a way which doesn't make use of any initiative or lateral thinking, leading to societies utterly lacking in dynamism.

Rote learning: Something a parrot can do. I hate it.
No particular disagreements there.

[THAC0]

Yeah, but I'm kind of assuming that it's pointless to put kids through classes they don't find reasonably interesting in the first place.



...no. Most kids do not find say, basic math interesting. Should they be allowed to not take it? Of course not.

[invinible]

...no. Most kids do not find say, basic math interesting. Should they be allowed to not take it? Of course not.

Actually, math is among the subjects that the original poster says you absolutely have to teach kids so they have a basic knowledge foundation by which to actually be able to learn the subjects they are interested in.

[Razanir]

* Evidence for the effectiveness of homework in many subjects appears to be lacking.

I can understand your point about some homework being excessive, but at the same time, homework really does help reinforce concepts


* I remember, in College, that a lot of the lecturers would refuse to release their full lecture notes online because the students wouldn't show up in class otherwise.

This is quite true. Another reason is that they might not want their name searchable. I've had a lecturer like that.


* There are certain subjects that you *have* to acquire basic proficiency in, because you need them to acquire further knowledge and function independently (math, literacy, rudimentary social etiquette, housekeeping/DIY, etc.) But having a wide range of compulsory subjects seems largely pointless. Aside from the rote regurgitation of facts, kids rarely retain knowledge of or interest in subjects that they didn't have some degree of interest in before.

My view on the wide range is that it helps people learn what they're interested in. How would you know if you'd really enjoy history if you're never exposed to it? That and the whole "doomed to repeat yourself" thing


* Adults seem to be under the impression that kids automatically learn stuff faster, but kids have far less discipline. And the reality of modern economies is that, in many jobs, you're going to have to retrain yourself every few years regardless. This idea of stuffing students' heads with a certain collection of knowledge, and they'll be set for life, is hopelessly outdated. (I reckon that direct training of techniques for self-directed learning- e.g, memory tricks, time planning, philosophy of science- might be useful in itself.)

Kids actually do learn more easily. Languages being the main example. And I don't think many people believe the "set for life" part


* What is up with all the textbooks? If you live in the western world, at least, odds are 9-to-1 you have access to a flatscreen device or laptop of some kind. And if you don't, schools could always give you a Kindle.

NO! I'm a firm believer in paper books! And especially with math and science classes, the physical book is a lot more convenient. Would you rather flip back through a physical book to look for the formula or page through a digital book. (Hint: If you know about where you're looking, the former is easier)

[THAC0]

Actually, math is among the subjects that the original poster says you absolutely have to teach kids so they have a basic knowledge foundation by which to actually be able to learn the subjects they are interested in.

The point still stands.

There are a lot, a majority, even, of kids who have NO INTEREST in pretty much any school subject. Interest should not be the sole deciding factor in whether or not kids take a class. Some things you need to know. If you want to debate what those things are, okay. Saying 40 minute classes are bad because kids should be more interested in the subject and therefore able to pay attention for longer? Not accurate.

[Don Julio Anejo]

1. Completely agree on homework. Depends on the country, it seems. Russia - little homework per se, but it's usually difficult unless you understand exactly what you're doing. Canada - way, way, way too much really easy homework that usually has to be done a very specific way, so in hard sciences creative thinking is actually penalized (even if it's encouraged in humanities like English/Socials).

US - somewhat of a balance between the two. Homework depends more on understanding than on volume, and usually doesn't take too long to do, but it's also significantly easier than stuff you're often tested on. Yes, I've lived and went to school in all 3 countries. Also, according to my friends from Asian countries (mostly China with a few Japanese here and there): a lot of rote learning that is specifically asked to be brute forced.

2. Sorry, but 45 minute periods work best in my experience unless you want to make kids do mindless busywork. It's just the right amount of time to get into concepts without overloading you with information. High school I've had 1:15 minute long classes, and trust me, 30-50 minutes is all it takes to get actual work done.

3. Eh, it's a 2 way street. Most of my lecturers release notes (PDF's/Powerpoints), but they also add (testable) stuff during the actual lecture so if you want to ace your exams, you better come to class. That said, most lecturers aren't getting paid to teach, they get paid to do research and write papers. Only ones who actually want to teach do so. Also, purpose of education is slowly becoming just to show that (a) you have basic knowledge in the field; and (b) you are disciplined and smart enough to do X amount of work needed to get your GPA.

4. No argument here, the amount of incompetent teachers is too damn high, even in good school. Tenure and unions are the enemy though, so no education reform will ever touch this unless a major economic depression happens.

5. Depends on a teacher. I've had a teacher interest me in biology despite the fact that I completely and utterly hated her and the subject matter.

6. Sorry, but this is true and if you want I can pull up a bunch of studies showing that kids do, in fact, learn faster. Agree on the second half, study habits are now more important than raw facts. That said, discipline is important too and saying "you have to do X amount of work with Y quality or you'll fail" is a pretty decent motivator unless kids don't care about failing at all, but that's usually a socioeconomic problem instead of an educational one.

7. A lot of teachers assign group projects, essays, presentations, etc. But it's pretty hard to do something constructive and practical for, say, English as compared to science or social studies. Making kids actually *do* stuff is the best way to make them interested though. Apprenticeships? This kind of stuff only really works for trades, and a lot of schools now do co-ops where they send students to workplaces in the general field. Yes, you fetch coffee and polish wrenches, but you can also see whether you like a career or not.

8. Sorry, but I'm not giving up my paper books. For anything other than literature, books are first and foremost a reference. Which you can bookmark, keep open in 5 places at once using your writing implements, highlight and the like. Doing it with any digital file is a big pain in the butt. Also, batteries tend to die.

9. Yep, completely agreed. A lot of this is already done, but depends on a school - to offer a class, you need both a teacher competent enough to teach it, and enough students interested.

[snoopy13a]

3. Eh, it's a 2 way street. Most of my lecturers release notes (PDF's/Powerpoints), but they also add (testable) stuff during the actual lecture so if you want to ace your exams, you better come to class. That said, most lecturers aren't getting paid to teach, they get paid to do research and write papers. Only ones who actually want to teach do so. Also, purpose of education is slowly becoming just to show that (a) you have basic knowledge in the field; and (b) you are disciplined and smart enough to do X amount of work needed to get your GPA.



I think post-secondary education has always been like that. I remember a professor in undergrad telling me that at his level you don't have to remember things, you just have to know how to look them up quickly. Essentially, undergrad is one giant test to determine how you stack entering the job market or the graduate school application process.

I think the most sane way to look at education is to think of it as a game.

[Mikhailangelo]

4. No argument here, the amount of incompetent teachers is too damn high, even in good school. Tenure and unions are the enemy though, so no education reform will ever touch this unless a major economic depression happens.

Just had to stop there... Unless a major economic depression happens?

[Don Julio Anejo]

Just had to stop there... Unless a major economic depression happens?
Sorry, but politics so I won't talk about unions. Except to point out the observation that employees who are the most vocal in unions rarely have the time to be good actual employees, no matter where they work. Which means no, bad teachers aren't going to get fired unless they do something borderline unethical or criminal.

[Xuc Xac]

* What is up with all the textbooks? If you live in the western world, at least, odds are 9-to-1 you have access to a flatscreen device or laptop of some kind. And if you don't, schools could always give you a Kindle.


And they could also give you a pony that grants wishes.

[Aedilred]

* Evidence for the effectiveness of homework in many subjects appears to be lacking. Finnland and Korea seem to have similar levels of educational achievement, and the Finns do a lot less homework.
It depends on the nature of the homework, as much as anything. Mindless repetitive reinforcement tasks probably don't add much value, but preparatory work for later classes, so you don't waste contact time having to cover the basics, is pretty valuable. In some language-based essay subjects, homework is the only time that students get the chance to do a lot of written work, unless, again, you want to waste teacher time watching students write stuff out.


* WTF is up with 40-minute class periods? For me, it was usually just long enough to get really stuck into a subject and then have your concentration broken.
40-45 minutes is about the limit of the normal human attention span. It's therefore about the right length for a class, so long as it's well organised. If you need longer to cover a given subject, arrange a double period and put a 5-minute break in. I wish my current university would follow this practice rather than giving us hour-and-a-half lectures/classes by the end of which my brain has pretty much turned off, regardless of how interesting I find the subject.

* I remember, in College, that a lot of the lecturers would refuse to release their full lecture notes online because the students wouldn't show up in class otherwise. My basic attitude was "If you're not adding any value that isn't present in the online notes, something I can probably get from wikipedia for free, or a book for a fraction of the cost, how do you justify your ****ing salary?"
I think this is to put the cart before the horse. Firstly, if they've written their own lecture notes and they're of a high quality, then they are earning their money anyway (plus the whole "lecturers really earn their money doing research" argument). But the real concern here is not that the lectures are useless, but that students will perceive that coming to the lectures is unnecessary if they have the lecturer's notes, which is often not the case. It's a strategy to dissuade lazier/busier students from skipping the lecture, not an indictment of the quality of the lecture itself.


* What is up with all the textbooks? If you live in the western world, at least, odds are 9-to-1 you have access to a flatscreen device or laptop of some kind. And if you don't, schools could always give you a Kindle.
I disagree completely.

There's my gut feeling on this - that I much prefer paper books - and a couple of more tangible ones. Firstly, reading from a screen is more difficult and tiring than reading from paper. It's also more difficult to flick quickly between pages for the purpose of comparison. Secondly, electronic devices like laptops and tablets are inherently more distracting than a book, because they have other readily-accessible functions. If you try to get your kids to do everything from a laptop, you'll end up with half of them, probably even including some of the well-intentioned ones, playing Tetris half the time instead of reading.

[Poison_Fish]

* I remember, in College, that a lot of the lecturers would refuse to release their full lecture notes online because the students wouldn't show up in class otherwise. My basic attitude was "If you're not adding any value that isn't present in the online notes, something I can probably get from wikipedia for free, or a book for a fraction of the cost, how do you justify your ****ing salary?"

Most I have encountered put lecture notes or some form of a power point associated with their lecture online after their lecture. However, it is dependent upon the personality of the professor. Depending on what you are there to learn, assuming you can just learn it from wikipedia is not only horribly demeaning, but it's also just flat wrong. Also, you've insulted adjunct professors (http://chronicle.com/article/Adjuncts-Working-Conditions/133918/) everywhere, who are the majority of educators at higher level education from a USian perspective. They would be envious for a salary that was above the poverty line, and here you are thinking it's to much.


* What is up with all the textbooks? If you live in the western world, at least, odds are 9-to-1 you have access to a flatscreen device or laptop of some kind. And if you don't, schools could always give you a Kindle.

Case #5500 on Singularitarians not getting what social inequality is.


* If you spent less money trying to teach kids things that are likely to be irrelevant to their lives, and which they almost certainly won't retain, you should, in principle, have more money to spend on teaching subjects which do interest them. Hell, you could expand the range significantly- programming, economics, law, martial arts, exploration, etc. etc. etc.

Programming: Founded on some manner of logic, where in math can enhance learning as well. Also, despite the annoyance, commenting your code well requires an acceptable level of communication.

Economics: Ground work for good economics requires math, history, some knowledge of the schools of thought and the philosophy behind them.

Law: Look at all of above. There are skill sets that form a foundation for much better success here. Notice that sort of trend?

Exploration: What even is this? Exploration of what? Astronomy? Bad 1920's anthropology with guys in safari hats and machete's?

In essence, declaring something irrelevant when it's more a question of teaching practices within the subject just doesn't work.

[noparlpf]

(I'm sleepy so this might be rambly and seem a little nonsensical in places.)

Yeah, the current education system is stupid. I'm the type who would have done better if they'd just let me learn at my own pace. Instead, I ended up repeating second grade and not managing to graduate from high school until sixteen.

On the most basic level, an hour-long period is probably just about right. I start to lose focus after an hour in hour-and-a-half periods, but you can't really do much in a shorter period. Labs are obviously an exception to that, you can't do anything in an hour.
Then there's the larger-scale scheduling. I'm okay with the five days of school, two days off (to do homework) model, but longer breaks are badly organised. For one, we need more week-long breaks in college. My old school gave a week-long break every six weeks and it was really nice to relax a bit periodically. Then, summer break is way too long. You just forget everything you ever knew over the course of two or three months, and besides, summer is so hot that that's when I'd rather be indoors in an air-conditioned room studying anyway. Breaks shouldn't be more than a month long, there should be more smaller breaks, but overall more time in school than just the 180 days American public schools generally stick to.
And the grade system is dumb. Kids should study what they're ready for when they're ready for it. If I hadn't spent two and a half years in public grade school before dropping out, I'd have actually learned things in that time instead of wasting all that time learning how not to learn, and a bunch of silly propaganda like the pilgrims' Thanksgiving nonsense. And they didn't even let me read when I was done with the lesson (and the homework too!). It's like they expected me to stare at the ceiling and twiddle my thumbs. So I dropped out, and we found a private school with a sort of Montessori style the next year.
My high school was fairly okay, though, as public high schools go. From what I hear many high schools have a largely prescribed curriculum (my little brother gets to pick one or two electives from a limited range when he's in twelfth grade, I think, and everything before that is mostly set). My high school handled classes like most colleges. You have to get credits in maths, English, science, history, or whatever, of course, but aside from English I and II, everything is open to your choice, and you don't need to spend four years if you have enough credits before then.

[Water_Bear]

The big problem with education now (at least in the US) isn't so much that the education which exists is bad at teaching people, but that access to education is fairly limited.

Even if you have a public school system and it is funded well enough to actually work, both big ifs in a lot of places, you need a lot of other stuff in the background as well or it isn't worth much. Kids need three square meals, a decent night's sleep, adequate medical care, easy access to libraries and the internet, a culture which values educational achievement, cheap transportation to and from school, a social context for understanding what college and different careers actually entail, and I'm sure tons of other things I couldn't think of.

When we talk about our educational system failing people, it usually isn't the people living above the poverty line we're talking about. Schools need to be improved and expanded across the board, but they're only one piece of a combined infrastructure which is lacking in a lot of places. Fiddling with the number of minutes in a period or the amount of homework assigned doesn't have nearly the marginal utility of investing in basic infrastructure, and is only likely to help people who are already doing fine.

[SiuiS]

I agree that an overhaul is neccisary, but I can't explain why without breaking, at my count, all the rules of the board.

Pretty much, aye.


Right, breaking down your points, being a teacher myself:

1) Homework works. It helps to consolidate what one has already learned. The reason for the Finns having similar results to Koreans in spite of less homework is found in other areas, which I'll cover later.

Homework CAN work, yes. But how would you consolidate what you've already learned? Most homework for the first nine years is strictly rote; I know ten year olds who can tell me what 15x13 is (which I would have to work out, myself) but not why it's that number (175? No, 195, dropped it a bit. Surprised that happened as a background process tired as I am). You also get children who are trying together homework out of the way, copyin sections of textbooks without integrating the words, aiming for the minimum numer of correct answers – my younger brother fought me tooth and nail when I pointed out one of hi math answers was wrong. "We are allowe to get up to five wrong" he said, and when I pointed out that was a grace period instead of a goal... Ugh.


2) 40 minute periods are actually the most efficient. It is near impossible to concentrate on something for longer, unless you find it exceptionally interesting or entertaining (See: video games and action movies).

Makes sense. I was under the impression however it was less an attention span bit and more about how much you could absorb in a unit of time. Thirty minutes or do between distinct ideas allows them to sink in and integrate better. Can't recall where I heard that though.



In many countries, rote learning and simple memorisation is used to learn things, as opposed to using proper understanding combined with intelligent study techniques. This requires a ridiculous amount of studying to succeed, and doesn't impart any understanding of the subject.

Furthermore, the use of rote learning requires the students be spoon-fed pointless facts by the teacher, which could have been just as easily lifted from Wikipedia. This reliance on spoon-feeding and uncreative learning leads to societies which are very easily controlled and, to some extent, are happily brainwashed and ignorant. The students are taught to think in a way which doesn't make use of any initiative or lateral thinking, leading to societies utterly lacking in dynamism.

Rote learning: Something a parrot can do. I hate it.

I would assume the Finns need less homework because they have more intelligent study techniques than the Koreans, generally speaking.

This is an interesting point. How would you begin the process of educating a child without rote learning? How woul you teach a five or six year old the basics of math and language?

How would you teach an eight year old further math and language, science, history? And how would you impart to them that this learning is vital?

At ten and twelve you're in junior high. These are the grades where electives, multiple classes, different teachers, different subjects really become a thing. How would you work on this there?

By high school they should already have a firm grasp on how learning works so you could just extrapolate the pattern outward.


...no. Most kids do not find say, basic math interesting. Should they be allowed to not take it? Of course not.

It's possible that math is considered not interesting due to societal pressures. Girls in the US do poorly at math starting at about nine year old; parents don't encourage girls to do math like they do boys. By twelve to fourteen, children are exposed to being a famous writer o being a famous athlete; very few children (or adults) understand how one becomes a professional mathematician or scientist.

It's possible kids don't like learning math because they'd re told math is for nerds and being a need is bad. I know I loved math, but had to struggle past a family that couldn't afford a graphing calculator and a school graded everything with a computer, providing absolutely no feedback except PASS or FAIL; if there is no difference between failing to carry a decimal point over, and skipping a problem, it quickly translates to no incentive to do math. It's a subject I enjoy and door fun whenever it comes up, but it was still an issue in school.


The point still stands.

There are a lot, a majority, even, of kids who have NO INTEREST in pretty much any school subject. Interest should not be the sole deciding factor in whether or not kids take a class. Some things you need to know. If you want to debate what those things are, okay. Saying 40 minute classes are bad because kids should be more interested in the subject and therefore able to pay attention for longer? Not accurate.

It's entirely Possible this is the reason for our current school structure. Those students who signed up for advanced classes, had good grades and pre college/college courses were a distinct and separate group from those kids who never learned to read, write or perform math beyond the basic fifth grade level. It may be a relic of the pseudo-corporate structure of public education (in America), that the promising students are given good teachers and the bad students are basically kept off the streets and fed and basically kept in day care.

Schools give children rote information relevant to exams by which the school is graded. This means then that the most efficient schools will spend the least amount of resources to achieve the highest turn out as graded by those exams as possible. Specialization in rote information because the goal. The enemies here would be a lack of competition, an social pressure from parents who don't want to admit their kid is bad at something.

An example of that last, California designed an exam, at 7th grade level, which high school students had to pass to graduate. Many students, five years down the line, couldn't pass this test. Some parents forme study groups wherein they tried to help their children. Most complained until the school rescinded the test. Rather than actually help their children – dare I say, rather than actually parent – the adults forced an honest but offensive benchmark to be lowered to meet them, rather than rise to meet the benchmark.

It's a bad system, I think. But I don't know how to start fixing it, or even if I could. Certainly the only educational system I know is the one I came from. The most important thing I learned about my eduction was how little I actually learned.

[scurv]

I was having a discussion with a parent of one of my nieces classmates the other day. He was making comparisons on how the educational system is comparable to the correctional system. He is an ex-convict.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Did you guys know public education in its current form came to be after child labour was finally banned mid-late 19th century, and so the government decided to both take kids off the streets, and train/discipline them to be more efficient workers in factories? That's where stern discipline (which is fortunately almost gone in Western countries), rote, repetitive learning, the whole marching in lines thing and bells to announce beginning/end of classes and early starts come from. And yes, schools are pretty much just free government daycares where productive learning hopefully happens, but isn't the main purpose.

Despite research that proves that for actual learning, much of that is counterproductive. I.E., when psychologists convinced one school to change begin just an hour later (at 10AM instead of 9), well-being, grades, productivity and virtually every metric you can think of increased (statistically) significantly for both students and teachers.

Rote learning, however, was important until pretty much just now: a lot of knowledge wasn't easily available anywhere except heavy, expensive, often outdated reference books and so for a lot of things you did, in fact, have to actually get the facts down instead of opening up Wikipedia on your phone.

[ufo]

One thing is discussing education and how it is effective, but if you want to discuss practice and implementation, we'll have to drag the forum guidelines out back and shoot 'em. Public education, how it is managed, what we are taught and when, all comes down to the specific people in control, how centralised their power is and their agenda.

Collectively, these aspects of the issue make it not only extremely important and interesting, but also taboo for these forums.

[the_druid_droid]

* Evidence for the effectiveness of homework in many subjects appears to be lacking. Finnland and Korea seem to have similar levels of educational achievement, and the Finns do a lot less homework.

This is admittedly a tricky point. It's certainly true that too much rote work is largely pointless as far as encouraging real thinking and development goes, and I still remember hating long repetitive assignments in grade school. Nevertheless, you do need to find a way to practice what you've heard in class, because you will never understand something you've merely heard or assented to as well as something you've had practice implementing and picking apart in order to do so.

The further complication is that more advanced assignments require more advanced preparation and logical skills, which in turn have to be built up from more basic and repetitive building blocks. Perhaps the proper question to ask is at what point in one's education the focus should shift from the building blocks to the more abstract application of previous knowledge to new and challenging problems.


* I remember, in College, that a lot of the lecturers would refuse to release their full lecture notes online because the students wouldn't show up in class otherwise. My basic attitude was "If you're not adding any value that isn't present in the online notes, something I can probably get from wikipedia for free, or a book for a fraction of the cost, how do you justify your ****ing salary?"

I'd like to second the point made that many lecturers are actually paid for their research and work in mentoring graduate students, rather than their efforts in the classroom. In addition, as has already been mentioned, many adjunct faculty to whom falls the day-to-day bulk of teaching are not given the resources they need in order to produce truly outstanding instruction.

Of course this begs a lot of economic and social questions with controversial answers as to how to proceed, but certainly it's a point for potential educational activism.


* There are certain subjects that you *have* to acquire basic proficiency in, because you need them to acquire further knowledge and function independently (math, literacy, rudimentary social etiquette, housekeeping/DIY, etc.) But having a wide range of compulsory subjects seems largely pointless. Aside from the rote regurgitation of facts, kids rarely retain knowledge of or interest in subjects that they didn't have some degree of interest in before.

While this might be true, it could also be argued that the educational establishment has a responsibility to show students the possibilities of many different fields, and to foster new interests. Again, there are many ways to do this, and it's not something that is happening anywhere near as much as it really should in the world, but I think it's important to point out that only studying what you're previously interested in has its downsides, and can be just as limiting as the converse.


* Adults seem to be under the impression that kids automatically learn stuff faster, but kids have far less discipline. And the reality of modern economies is that, in many jobs, you're going to have to retrain yourself every few years regardless. This idea of stuffing students' heads with a certain collection of knowledge, and they'll be set for life, is hopelessly outdated. (I reckon that direct training of techniques for self-directed learning- e.g, memory tricks, time planning, philosophy of science- might be useful in itself.)

I think you may be misrepresenting the goal of elementary and secondary education here. It's not so much meant to give them a set of absolutely unchanging principles that will leave them set for life as it is to give them a foundation to build off of in future education and/or careers, as well as to ensure that everyone who does continue on to college or technical education starts out with a roughly standardized toolkit for further learning. If you have to teach half of an incoming freshman class what a logarithm is while the rest are chomping at the bit for actual calculus, your class is going to be painfully inefficient. (Again, this sort of thing still happens in reality, but I'm talking about the ideal world in this case.)


* The emphasis of educational curricula is wrong for many students. A lot of people learn facts far more easily when they see some direct connection to practical applications of that knowledge. I think apprenticeship schemes with many industries or professions, and/or private-sector collaborations, need to start earlier and be better supported.

While I see merit in your ultimate conclusion here, I think that the first bit runs in to trouble. Principally, things like basic addition, literacy, and general social/historical knowledge are all extremely important to open the way to more interesting and practically-applicable fields of study, but in themselves are hard to justify except as a stepping stone that you'll "need some day". A certain amount of the justification for the basics requires faith in the idea that they are the building blocks for what you're interested in learning down the line.

This isn't to say that the pace of learning the basics couldn't be improved on, especially for talented students, but ultimately knowledge in any field depends on a mix of abstract and concrete concepts, and some of them you just have to put up with learning until you see how they connect.


* What is up with all the textbooks? If you live in the western world, at least, odds are 9-to-1 you have access to a flatscreen device or laptop of some kind. And if you don't, schools could always give you a Kindle.

This would be wonderful if most schools weren't badly under-funded, and if families had unlimited resources. Even if 90% have the equipment, that leaves 10% (arguably the ones who need a functional education system even more so than the rest) out in the cold.


* If you spent less money trying to teach kids things that are likely to be irrelevant to their lives, and which they almost certainly won't retain, you should, in principle, have more money to spend on teaching subjects which do interest them. Hell, you could expand the range significantly- programming, economics, law, martial arts, exploration, etc. etc. etc.

This would be nice, but the reality in many places is that if subjects are judged unnecessary, they won't be replaced with new and interesting ones, they'll just be cut so the money can be re-allocated elsewhere.


It's entirely Possible this is the reason for our current school structure. Those students who signed up for advanced classes, had good grades and pre college/college courses were a distinct and separate group from those kids who never learned to read, write or perform math beyond the basic fifth grade level. It may be a relic of the pseudo-corporate structure of public education (in America), that the promising students are given good teachers and the bad students are basically kept off the streets and fed and basically kept in day care.

This is true in a lot of places, I think, and also quite sad. Deep down, I'm an idealist and would like to see everyone with the interest (and even those who could one day become interested) have access to a proper education and opportunities for higher learning or some equivalent program for personal growth in subjects they're passionate about. Unfortunately, the realities seem to be much more troubling.

[SiuiS]

This is admittedly a tricky point. It's certainly true that too much rote work is largely pointless as far as encouraging real thinking and development goes, and I still remember hating long repetitive assignments in grade school. Nevertheless, you do need to find a way to practice what you've heard in class, because you will never understand something you've merely heard or assented to as well as something you've had practice implementing and picking apart in order to do so.

The further complication is that more advanced assignments require more advanced preparation and logical skills, which in turn have to be built up from more basic and repetitive building blocks. Perhaps the proper question to ask is at what point in one's education the focus should shift from the building blocks to the more abstract application of previous knowledge to new and challenging problems.

The simple answer is a holistic approach. Giving kids Legos for half an hour and then giving them instructions for alf an hour can theoretically foster creativity and give them ideas to try on their own later if the instructions include things they never thought of. This may be more, less, or equally efficient compared to giving children both Lego bricks and instructions at the same time for an hour. The real point though is its definitely an improvement over Legos for eight years, and then instruction sprinkled with some sparse brick time for the last four.

Teaching someone the basics of a thing and then building those basics into a workable unit should take a matter of months, not years. Even with children. And braiding the curriculum – tying in the newest set of building blocks and instructions back with the previous set – would see larger dividends, as children who are doing poetry woul automatically think of math, language and sound instead of just language. Algebra is... Okay, I suppose, but it's much more fun when computing aerodynamic form of an object so you can build the best possible javelin for your LARP, which includes economics and charity since materials come in disparate price brackets.

Basically everything you would learn from SimCity, only five years sooner.



I think you may be misrepresenting the goal of elementary and secondary education here. It's not so much meant to give them a set of absolutely unchanging principles that will leave them set for life as it is to give them a foundation to build off of in future education and/or careers, as well as to ensure that everyone who does continue on to college or technical education starts out with a roughly standardized toolkit for further learning. If you have to teach half of an incoming freshman class what a logarithm is while the rest are chomping at the bit for actual calculus, your class is going to be painfully inefficient. (Again, this sort of thing still happens in reality, but I'm talking about the ideal world in this case.)

Rather than a misrepresentation, I think yet meant that procedures are in place which are supposed to prevent this from happening, but fail. And not only fail, any metho of teaching which would prevent this from happening have to actively be championed while you fight the current system.

You should easily be able to screen people out of calculus based not on GPA, but effectiveness of knowledge. Have basic level entry tests, and the problem is solved. Although I think basic entry requirements changing lower grades such that they teach specifically those requirements may actually be why we are where we are...



This would be wonderful if most schools weren't badly under-funded, and if families had unlimited resources. Even if 90% have the equipment, that leaves 10% (arguably the ones who need a functional education system even more so than the rest) out in the cold.

Legislation can't fix this kind of disparity, but it can be used on a different operational level to make the disparity less important.



This is true in a lot of places, I think, and also quite sad. Deep down, I'm an idealist and would like to see everyone with the interest (and even those who could one day become interested) have access to a proper education and opportunities for higher learning or some equivalent program for personal growth in subjects they're passionate about. Unfortunately, the realities seem to be much more troubling.

I think the problem and the only disparity between our viewpoints is the importance of school and institutionalized education. As we have talked about, I could get more out of borrowing some books from you, crashing through them with Wikipedia an the occasional IRC chat, than I could have gotten in school. This is because I'm willing to learn, I want to learn, and I understand what learning is. I don't need a school, just a non-inhibiting environment and some supplies.

Conversely, I know several people who mix up mail/female and chanemale and tex messages and such. And when they say "I can't read as good as you, alright?" it's not an admission of fault, it's a shield, an excuse. They believe they had a chance to learn to read, they didn't take it and now they are static. This mindset wouldn't even learn in a school, not without some psychological work to coax them out of their shell.

Ideally, one would have to see to the social, psychological an economic input tht goes into education. It's counterinsurgency; if someone has a bruised leg you don't massage the bruise, you go for the tendons that affect that muscle. If fixing education isn't working you need to fix everything that holds education as a system back. But suddenly it's an entire magnitude larger as far as problems go. Everyone is qualified to natter about what teachers and schools shoul and shouldn't do. The politics, economics and sociology involved are much harder to break into though. How does one even start to make a difference?

[Carry2]

Whoaaaa. Where did all these posts come from?

I'm not gonna be able to reply properly for at least a week. By all means carry on, but please try to read the entire thread before posting.

[Carry2]

I will try to make a few general points for now:

* On the topic of period times: This might just be me, but I generally found that I could go on for hours in classes like art or science. *shrugs* If that's not what the studies indicate is usually the case, I will defer to the evidence, though perhaps a minority of children might prefer that approach.

* On the topic of subject pre-requisites: I'm not saying that things like economics or law don't have pre-reqs, or don't benefit from synergy with other subjects, or that seemingly abstract subjects like history or abstract math don't have practical payoffs later. But in that case, just explain this to the students and let them make their own decisions.

* On the topic of how-do-you-know-you-don't-like-it-if-you-don't-try-it: Then encourage kids to try subjects. 'Allow to try' is not 'force to take.' The use of force might actively turn kids off a given subject.

* On the topic of learning-is-good-for-you-even-if-you're-not-interested: I think any discussion of this would first have to establish that there is a decent rate of success in imparting actual long-term knowledge of such subjects to uninterested students. Otherwise, the prescriptive argument is, well, academic.

* On the topic of children-learning-faster: To clarify, I'm not saying that kids don't learn faster than adults when they actually apply themselves. They are not going to learn faster when they don't study because they're not interested. Adults are often much better at forcing themselves to do things they find tedious. Self-discipline, by definition, cannot be imposed externally.

* On the topic of schools-can't-afford kindles: At this point, kindles are arguably cheaper than textbooks. If you don't want distractions, install child-locks. The situation may be different in 3rd world nations, but no amount of hindering First-world kids, in itself, is going to help them out. And if you prefer books, by all means buy them. Or use a printer.

* On the topic of online lecture-notes: Again, if a lecturer genuinely has something extra to offer in class, well and good. And frankly, my confidence of that was substantially increased when their notes were freely available on the web.

[THAC0]

I think the OP is not differentiating enough between primary and secondary education. Some of the OPs thoughts make sense in say, college or university. Middle school? Much less so.

[SiuiS]

Whoaaaa. Where did all these posts come from?

I'm not gonna be able to reply properly for at least a week. By all means carry on, but please try to read the entire thread before posting.

Just about always do.
Hi! I'm the pony thread element of quoteposts. I've missed approximately 54 pages worth of 2,842 pages. And I plan to catch up on them in the next few months.


I will try to make a few general points for now:

* On the topic of period times: This might just be me, but I generally found that I could go on for hours in classes like art or science. *shrugs* If that's not what the studies indicate is usually the case, I will defer to the evidence, though perhaps a minority of children might prefer that approach.

Interest and excitement in a subject could be viewed as changing the subject. Integrating small bits, discussing and experimenting are all subtle shifts of focus compared to the assumed "sit there for forty minutes while the teacher talks to/at you".



* On the topic of subject pre-requisites: I'm not saying that things like economics or law don't have pre-reqs, or don't benefit from synergy with other subjects, or that seemingly abstract subjects like history or abstract math don't have practical payoffs later. But in that case, just explain this to the students and let them make their own decisions.

* On the topic of how-do-you-know-you-don't-like-it-if-you-don't-try-it: Then encourage kids to try subjects. 'Allow to try' is not 'force to take.' The use of force might actively turn kids off a given subject.

I'm confused. How is this functionally different from the current system? And how is a focus on allowance without any social pressure to try different from letting kids skip shook entirely?



* On the topic of learning-is-good-for-you-even-if-you're-not-interested: I think any discussion of this would first have to establish that there is a decent rate of success in imparting actual long-term knowledge of such subjects to uninterested students. Otherwise, the prescriptive argument is, well, academic.

Your opening quote addresses this. Leaning is good for you. What's debatable is how much learning goes on.



* On the topic of schools-can't-afford kindles: At this point, kindles are arguably cheaper than textbooks. If you don't want distractions, install child-locks. The situation may be different in 3rd world nations, but no amount of hindering First-world kids, in itself, is going to help them out. And if you prefer books, by all means buy them. Or use a printer.

Bulk buy. Contracts. Economics.
Text books are cheap enough for schools to buy because they buy in bulk. Textbooks are made in the thousands, shipped in the hundreds. They are also a steady source of money for publishers, who revise the books every few years, changing subtle points, or sometimes overhauling organization and even adding/subtracting entire subjects. That's discount textbook cost in the hundreds every few years.

Now switch models. Say a school buys five thousand kindles, at $10 each. That's $50,000 dollars given to Amazon for their hardware. Say that school gets to keep the kindles or charge students retail if they keep/lose/break them. That's great. But it's not textbooks.

Publishing companies still need to make a profit. They lose some overhead because paper and shipping is expensive, true, but they still need to pay their employees, editors and such. They also we'd to deal with digital rights management stuff, selling student copies which can be transferred to X numer of devices of you have the auth code for it, etc., and they have inertia on their side. So now you're still paying for a full textbook – you've traded in weight and ease of use for eye strain and easily damaged, defaced, Lost and stolen property, worth a lot of money on the individual scale, that you're trusting to teenagers.

You also have the same problem with revision, except now all the extra money is going to be put into makin sure no one pirates their newest edition. That p they switch to a cheaper model and let a lot o people go because their jobs are unnecessary, or they run digital and analogue copies redundantly and have more overhead which they pass on to schools.


I think the OP is not differentiating enough between primary and secondary education. Some of the OPs thoughts make sense in say, college or university. Middle school? Much less so.

good point.
What is the difference between primary and secondary education?

[the_druid_droid]

I think the problem and the only disparity between our viewpoints is the importance of school and institutionalized education. As we have talked about, I could get more out of borrowing some books from you, crashing through them with Wikipedia an the occasional IRC chat, than I could have gotten in school. This is because I'm willing to learn, I want to learn, and I understand what learning is. I don't need a school, just a non-inhibiting environment and some supplies.

I understand where you're coming from, and I do believe there are people who would learn a lot more if they were just given the tools to do so. The problem is that there are so many folks that would just use the self-instruction as a way to avoid work, unless you have a good way of identifying your candidates.

Maybe in some ways that's the issue - you're always dealing with a mixture on both sides of the desk. You have a class that has a certain percentage who will deal with the boring institution stuff just long enough to get to the point they want to be at, a group that has the discipline necessary to learn if we could find a better way to instruct them, some that just won't participate no matter what you do, and some that really excel in that structured environment and would flounder without it. And similar divisions can apply to instructors too, I think. Really, you need some way to identify who belongs to which group and where the source of their difficulties lies. But that costs time and money a lot of districts don't have or aren't willing to spend, so what do you do?


Ideally, one would have to see to the social, psychological an economic input tht goes into education. It's counterinsurgency; if someone has a bruised leg you don't massage the bruise, you go for the tendons that affect that muscle. If fixing education isn't working you need to fix everything that holds education as a system back. But suddenly it's an entire magnitude larger as far as problems go. Everyone is qualified to natter about what teachers and schools shoul and shouldn't do. The politics, economics and sociology involved are much harder to break into though. How does one even start to make a difference?

Yeah, pretty much this problem.

[Carry2]

Interest and excitement in a subject could be viewed as changing the subject. Integrating small bits, discussing and experimenting are all subtle shifts of focus compared to the assumed "sit there for forty minutes while the teacher talks to/at you".
I... suppose so.

I'm confused. How is this functionally different from the current system?...
Your opening quote addresses this. Learning is good for you...
Last I heard, there are a lot of mandatory subjects in many schools in many countries, below college level. And I am skeptical of the efficiency of teaching them for years on end in the cases of kids that have no interest in them.

I remember that my secondary school art history teacher considered it a major favour that I was allowed to switch subjects after 4th year, which seemed strange, given that the ostensible purpose of the institution was for them to cater to my needs.

Bulk buy. Contracts. Economics.
Text books are cheap enough for schools to buy because they buy in bulk.
There are many schools, at least where I live, that oblige their students to buy their own textbooks, and they often do not come cheap. I don't see how the argument about supporting publishing companies or DRM schemes is valid, since I don't believe that this information should have to be paid for on a per-student basis. I believe that it should be made freely available, and any government incapable of furnishing such information will be equally incapable of telling the difference between a good and bad curriculum to begin with. (Even when I'm skeptical about the virtues of fixed curriculums.)

.

[Aedilred]

Last I heard, there are a lot of mandatory subjects in many schools in many countries, below college level. And I am skeptical of the efficiency of teaching them for years on end in the cases of kids that have no interest in them.
In the UK, at least, the compulsory subjects are maths, English, basic science and, I think, some social science. There used to be a foreign language requirement, which was dropped a few years ago in a move I consider painfully short-sighted.

I think it's difficult to make an argument for dropping any of them as compulsory subjects regardless of how interesting a twelve-year-old finds them (twelve-year-olds not being great judges of what will be good for them).

There are also various social factors in play - the benefit of an education is not just for the educatee, but for the state as a whole, but to explore those too much further would probably cross the line into politics.

[SiuiS]

EDIT I would still like to know what the difference between primary and secondary education actually is. That wasn't hyperbole, it was an honest question. All my questions so far have been.


I... suppose so.

If you're unconvinced I'm willing to discuss it. If I am wrong it's better to find out sooner than later.


Last I heard, there are a lot of mandatory subjects in many schools in many countries, below college level. And I am skeptical of the efficiency of teaching them for years on end in the cases of kids that have no interest in them.

Forgive me, but I just don't follow. This conversational thread seems disjointed.
It seems to me, that you're working from personal connotations. There are compulsory courses throughout school, yes.

The point however, is that telling a kid "if you don't learn A you'll never learn B" and giving them, a minor, the choice to either do something that has no immediate pay-off, or instea go play... Is functionally identical to the current system where the child will lean of they want to or will not learn if they don't want to. Children can pick up stuff through osmosis, so sitting through a science class they don't like, and then going into chemistry, they could note that "oh, I vaguely recall this being mentioned in X class" and would know both where to look it up and why it was important; a child who was allowed to go to recess instead would not have that benefit. He we stop advancement entirely when he didn't like science and would never step foot in chemistry and did out he likes it. It's an inherently more limiting form of our current system.



There are many schools, at least where I live, that oblige their students to buy their own textbooks, and they often do not come cheap.

It's entirely possible that those textbooks are expensive because[/i] they are purchased and shipped individually, or that the school I selling it at retail when they purchased them in bulk wholesale.

We are also talking about education, not college education. Education on a public level begins what, at five years old? That's thirteen years of compulsory education. You're talking about two to six (or more) years of education via a process you could research and know about while going in, which is a different beast. I am concerned primarily with the education children receive, not the education adults volunteer for.


I don't see how the argument about supporting publishing companies or DRM schemes is valid,

The people who already make salaries off of textbook sales and marketing wanting to continue making salaries despite pushes for altruism is entirely valid.


since I don't believe that this information should have to be paid for on a per-student basis. I believe that it should be made freely available, and any government incapable of furnishing such information will be equally incapable of telling the difference between a good and bad curriculum to begin with. (Even when I'm skeptical about the virtues of fixed curriculums.

Unfortunately, these problems can't be resolved that way. Freely available information is patently untrustworthy. As soon as you start vetting that information, making sure its correct, and worth teaching... Suddenly it's someoe's job to get paid for good information. I also do not think the government should be in charge of education as a lack of competition is what allows standards to become so fixated on test scores (instead of client satisfaction) that children are given rote information (to increase the school's arbitrary rank, and thus increase its funding) instead of taught how to learn. It's a monopoly that cannot be solved by petitioning the monopolizing institution to become altruistic, becaus they will alter their behavior elsewhere to make up for it; all "free" information would be geared towards making up the lost revenue.

Education as a system requires quality control. Quality control requires incentive. Somewhere down the line, whether it's the teacher, or the publisher, or the hardware manufacturer, or the plastics and circuitry fabricator, someone is going I say "I don't care if it's for education, I have a mortgage to pay off". Money [b]must change hands. You can home school, if you want. You can also go to private schools. But if you're paying for public education anyway, then most people don't want the extra expense. And public education comes out of taxes.

It seems every avenue of discussion other than how people should learn and how it should be taught/handled comes back to government... We can freely discuss abstract potential but not implementation.

[WarKitty]

EDIT I would still like to know what the difference between primary and secondary education actually is. That wasn't hyperbole, it was an honest question. All my questions so far have been.

At least in the U.S., primary education is compulsory and supposed to be a background needed for everyone. Secondary education is not required and varies far more by intended field, though there is typically still a core set of classes that are required.

Edit: After TA'ing at a public college, I'm somewhat worried about feedback systems. The trouble I have is that what students want and what's conducive to education are not the same. Unfortunately I think there's a fundamental conflict here.

Assume, for now, that we're only dealing with students who want a degree for the purpose of getting a job. Now, most of these students want their degree for the least amount of work they can do. Therefore, they push for less work and easier grading. However, the reason degrees are valuable for work is that the employer is counting on the degree representing a certain amount of knowledge learned. If degrees cease to represent a meaningful knowledge gain, they lose their value.

This is the unfortunate double bind of the education system, especially with feedback. I've had a remarkable number of complaints from students that simply amounted to them not liking being held to basic standards.

[SiuiS]

At least in the U.S., primary education is compulsory and supposed to be a background needed for everyone. Secondary education is not required and varies far more by intended field, though there is typically still a core set of classes that are required.

So the distinction isn't method or intent so much description?


Edit: After TA'ing at a public college, I'm somewhat worried about feedback systems. The trouble I have is that what students want and what's conducive to education are not the same. Unfortunately I think there's a fundamental conflict here.

Assume, for now, that we're only dealing with students who want a degree for the purpose of getting a job. Now, most of these students want their degree for the least amount of work they can do. Therefore, they push for less work and easier grading. However, the reason degrees are valuable for work is that the employer is counting on the degree representing a certain amount of knowledge learned. If degrees cease to represent a meaningful knowledge gain, they lose their value.

This is the unfortunate double bind of the education system, especially with feedback. I've had a remarkable number of complaints from students that simply amounted to them not liking being held to basic standards.

I think the simple answer here is that you can't get an honest answer out of the people who have the most to gain. How to fix it though? I don't know. Perhaps industry driven standards, where schools of X subject must conform to standards of X industry?

It sounds like the system predominantly needs an overhaul. A complete one. I can think of. Only one person I know in school who is directly benefitting from The structure of his education, an I surmise that is because his job has a similar structure to it.

[snoopy13a]

EDIT I would still like to know what the difference between primary and secondary education actually is. That wasn't hyperbole, it was an honest question. All my questions so far have been.



Primary education is for young children. It starts between the ages of 3-5 and lasts until about age 11 or so. In the U.S., it comprises pre-K to grades 5 or 6. Schools for young children are called elementary schools or primary schools.

Secondary education is for adolescents. It starts at about age 11 or 12 and lasts until about age 18. In the U.S. it comprises middle school/junior high and high school, ending at high school graduation.

Post-secondary education is education after high school with undergraduate studies being the primary example.

[WarKitty]

Primary education is for young children. It starts between the ages of 3-5 and lasts until about age 11 or so. In the U.S., it comprises pre-K to grades 5 or 6. Schools for young children are called elementary schools or primary schools.

Secondary education is for adolescents. It starts at about age 11 or 12 and lasts until about age 18. In the U.S. it comprises middle school/junior high and high school, ending at high school graduation.

Post-secondary education is education after high school with undergraduate studies being the primary example.

Right, though I think Thac0 probably meant to differentiate between primary/secondary and post-secondary, given that she mentioned middle school and college. There's much more of a relevant difference between them.


So the distinction isn't method or intent so much description?

Sort of. The voluntariness or lack thereof is actually a big difference, I think. The first levels are mandatory - you have to be in school, in most states up til something like your 16th or 18th birthday, unless you graduate early. This means the teachers and system have a greater, or at least different, responsibility to you. There's much more of an idea that anyone should be able to get a high school degree, and the school is responsible for ensuring that all students get through the program and meet the requirements. As it's required, public education is also funded by tax money, though private schools are available.

Since college is considered optional, there's less pressure on the school to take care of you. Failing grades and students dropping out are more common. You cannot be forced to complete homework or attend school - you'll just fail the class. Too many failing grades can result in a student being suspended or expelled. Students or their families are generally expected to pay for their own education, though assistance is available to low-income families.

Otherwise - the class structure is pretty different, at least in the U.S. system. Primary/secondary assume that you are in school for most of the day, Monday through Friday. You get some homework but it's not the most significant component. Most of your classes will be chosen for you, to cover a broad range of subjects, or at the very least you'll have to choose within constraints (e.g. having to take one math, one social science, one english, and one science course each year). Even if electives are there, students won't be in specialized programs.

In college, a full schedule might only have you in class 15 hours a week, which means homework and studying on your own time are significantly greater components. General education requirements are there but much lower - my philosophy degree only required me to take a single math class out of a standard 8-semester program. You spend the majority of your time in classes that are more specific to your own chosen major.

[SiuiS]

Huh. It actually sounds, when laid out like that, that a lot of the failings of the system are because it is compulsory.

Children must attend school, which creates a sense of it bein the achool's job to take care of them.
Schools then must divide the teacher's a kill between educating and raising the children, which is a morass of problems in its own right.
Having a culture of young children being educated and raised by a public institution gives parents a sense of maintaining a hands off approach, which actually leads to worse educational development.

Hmm. Unclear. Need to think this through first.

[GnomeFighter]

Not going to say what I think on allot of points because:
1) I'm no expert on education, and I can only comment on what works for me. As I am both Dyslexic and Dyspraxic I am aware that it may not work for other people.
2) I wrote a long essay on the rights and wrongs of the value of a good education system, but realized it was far to much. Sufficed to say I am not convinced of the value of pushing children to succeed at all costs and feel children are loosing too much childhood in an educational arms race.

However, something I do know about! Publishing...


They lose some overhead because paper and shipping is expensive, true, but they still need to pay their employees, editors and such.
Paper and shipping actually make up very little of the costs of a book. Storage is a big chunk of the "non publishing" part of publishing, but with text books even that is tiny because you know approximately how many you will need, when you will need them and are able to print the right numbers and have very few sat around compared to other books.

With digital books there is a whole raft of problems like, what format. Publishers would need to work together to work out a format for all school books world wide. They would then need to work with hardware manufacturers and schools. Before the publishers did this they would need schools show that they can be trusted to abide by copyright laws. Schools are notoriously bad when it comes to respecting copyright as it is at the moment.



So now you're still paying for a full textbook – you've traded in weight and ease of use for eye strain and easily damaged, defaced, Lost and stolen property, worth a lot of money on the individual scale, that you're trusting to teenagers.


Eye strain should not be a problem with E-Ink. Only if you start using non e-paper screens will it become a problem. The biggest problem as I see it is, well, dumping e-book readers in sinks of water would become the new game for all bullies, and how many more would be lost to bags thrown on the ground, or used as goal posts or to mark out a baseball pitch etc.

[Don Julio Anejo]

E-Ink screens have an additional downside in that they can't display color. Big screens (like, say, 10") are a LOT more expensive, and even then smaller than many textbooks. Also, sharing becomes more difficult. I.e. if you forget a book, you can always borrow one from a friend who has the same class the period before. Kindle? Well, chances are no, your friend will need it for his class too. Finally, the single biggest advantage to a physical book is that you can flip it at will. Like, open questions on page 275 and flip forward/back within pages 250-270 to actually find your answer. Sure, you can work around that with technology (separate files, built-in search function), but it's still less convenient. And if you do make it more convenient, you also make it more lazy, i.e. just search for the answer and quote it word for word on the homework assignment.

For college, the main point is that the vast majority of students actually want to be there, and pay for the privilege to do so. They're not forced by the government to go and attend classes they completely hate. Even if they "have" to attend post-secondary (i.e. societal pressure), they're still usually free to choose whatever interests them the most (irregardless of its future utility). This is different from grade school - for example, I found art classes positively painful. I also skipped easily a third of my classes in general simply because I felt them a waste of time.

[noparlpf]

For college, the main point is that the vast majority of students actually want to be there, and pay for the privilege to do so. They're not forced by the government to go and attend classes they completely hate. Even if they "have" to attend post-secondary (i.e. societal pressure), they're still usually free to choose whatever interests them the most (irregardless of its future utility). This is different from grade school - for example, I found art classes positively painful. I also skipped easily a third of my classes in general simply because I felt them a waste of time.

That depends a lot. Yeah, most of them want to be at college, but very few want to be in most of the mandatory classes they're forced through. Take my HIS 103 as an example. That's a freshman-level US history course, fills half the requirement of "two US history courses from this list", lecture hall of around two hundred students. And attendance is mandatory with that prof, she has a team of TAs who do nothing for the full hour except stand at a table in the corner with a massive seating chart (we have assigned seats) and take attendance; between the three of them they can usually finish in about fifty minutes. But, as attendance is mandatory and computers aren't banned, guess how many people bring their computers and play games or browse facebook or whatever it is kids these days do. Lots. And the ones who don't are probably on their phones. Two weeks ago the prof actually kind of flipped out and chewed out several guys in the front row, one of whom was wearing headphones, and all three of whom were online and ignoring her.

tl;dr Most kids in college (past the first year when a bunch drop out) want to be in college, but the mandatory gen. ed. classes should be left in high school, and college should be for actually getting somewhere in your probably-already-defined-after-high-school field(s) of interest that'll nudge you towards a possible career.

[WarKitty]

Part of the problem with college, I think, is that we're trying to do two very different things.

I'm in philosophy. I'm certainly hoping to get a job in the field, but job preparation is not my primary goal. I'm in school primarily because I want the learning for it's own sake - it's something I find interesting and think is intrinsically valuable. I don't mind taking other stuff as well, because I find that it relates in interesting ways, and I want that sort of broad exposure to academic studies.

Now take my friend that studied computer science. His primary reason for being in school was to get a job. The required language and history classes were simply frustrations - they didn't contribute to his future career. The problem, I think, is that college is primarily designed more for people like me. In earlier times, people would have done apprenticeships or gone to a trade school, while the university system was the preserve of those interested in academics.

[noparlpf]

Part of the problem with college, I think, is that we're trying to do two very different things.

I'm in philosophy. I'm certainly hoping to get a job in the field, but job preparation is not my primary goal. I'm in school primarily because I want the learning for it's own sake - it's something I find interesting and think is intrinsically valuable. I don't mind taking other stuff as well, because I find that it relates in interesting ways, and I want that sort of broad exposure to academic studies.

Now take my friend that studied computer science. His primary reason for being in school was to get a job. The required language and history classes were simply frustrations - they didn't contribute to his future career. The problem, I think, is that college is primarily designed more for people like me. In earlier times, people would have done apprenticeships or gone to a trade school, while the university system was the preserve of those interested in academics.

Eh, somewhat. I'm planning to stay in school after undergrad because I'm interested in learning more and I don't have any concrete career goals. So in that regard, I'm more like you than like your friend. But, I still don't want to have to deal with mandatory courses in which I'm not interested.

[THAC0]

tl;dr Most kids in college (past the first year when a bunch drop out) want to be in college, but the mandatory gen. ed. classes should be left in high school, and college should be for actually getting somewhere in your probably-already-defined-after-high-school field(s) of interest that'll nudge you towards a possible career.

Most high schools can't get it done for various and sundry reasons, some more valid than others.

I've sat through horrible mandatory gen ed classes (History of math, shudder), but one of my favorite classes was also a mandatory gen ed. Hit or miss.

[noparlpf]

Most high schools can't get it done for various and sundry reasons, some more valid than others.

I've sat through horrible mandatory gen ed classes (History of math, shudder), but one of my favorite classes was also a mandatory gen ed. Hit or miss.

I really don't see why, besides funding, but that's politics and can't come into this discussion. Start teaching kids real things earlier, and they'll do fine learning proper English, history, sciences, and maths in high school. It's kind of awful that by college professors have given up on marking points off for bad grammar because the know it's a lost cause. If we just taught that basic stuff in grade school, it would be out of the way so we could teach proper gen ed fundamentals in high school.

[Verte]

[font=times][i]
The emphasis of educational curricula is wrong for many students. A lot of people learn facts far more easily when they see some direct connection to practical applications of that knowledge. I think apprenticeship schemes with many industries or professions, and/or private-sector collaborations, need to start earlier and be better supported.


Ok, first of all, I think that in order to really address this question we would need to go into politics - which we can't do - and we would also have to identify the exact problems that we would need to solve. Also, I assume that we're focusing on the US, but that's not necessarily the case. I mean, the OP says "worldwide" but educational systems already differ greatly across the world, and what might be effective for students in Finland isn't necessarily going to be effective in Korea due to cultural differences. Also, there will have to be differences between primary education (elementary school), secondary education (high school), and postsecondary education (college or university).

Some people learn better when they see a direct connection to practical applications. Other people, like me, don't. I recall feeling as though nothing from the physics classes I took in college stuck because I felt that the connection between different topics wasn't emphasized at all. A year out I can only really recall the topics that we're covered in the first month of class, and that's only because I already knew most of that information.

Now granted, maybe it was because these classes only required trig, and therefore suffered because they didn't require calculus. Or maybe its because for whatever reason we weren't assigned actual homework - we had lab reports and exams, but weren't assigned homework problems to solve.

What my point is, I guess, is that replacing one system that doesn't work for a lot of people with another system that doesn't work for a lot of people isn't really helpful. I think you would have to recognize that people tend to learn in different ways.


What is up with all the textbooks? If you live in the western world, at least, odds are 9-to-1 you have access to a flatscreen device or laptop of some kind. And if you don't, schools could always give you a Kindle.

I don't think this would be feasible in the schools where the most problems are, mainly due to cost. And again, at those schools, chances are that the kids don't actually have those devices at home, either.


If you spent less money trying to teach kids things that are likely to be irrelevant to their lives, and which they almost certainly won't retain, you should, in principle, have more money to spend on teaching subjects which do interest them. Hell, you could expand the range significantly- programming, economics, law, martial arts, exploration, etc. etc. etc.

See, I don't find martial arts to be particularly relevant to my life. Granted, I don't feel that soccer, hockey, or wrestling are relevant to my life either, but schools seem to spend money on those things, too. Plus, economics, programming, and law all require a basis in varying levels of math, history, and English. I think the main issue here is that more teachers would have to be hired at the high school level to teach fewer students, which would cost more money.


Eh, somewhat. I'm planning to stay in school after undergrad because I'm interested in learning more and I don't have any concrete career goals. So in that regard, I'm more like you than like your friend. But, I still don't want to have to deal with mandatory courses in which I'm not interested.

Eh, if I had been required to pick a major, stick with it, and only take classes related to that major when I started college, I would have been miserable since I realized a year in that I was ill-suited the field I originally considered. I mean, I think I agree in the sense that I wish there was more choice in what I take - there are still several mandatory classes I have to take that I don't think will transfer. I also agree that a number of the requirements are simply there to patch up deficiencies in the high school system.

Plus, I still see people sleeping or playing games through classes that are required for their major, so I don't think that mandatory gen eds are necessarily the sole reason for that.


Ideally, one would have to see to the social, psychological an economic input tht goes into education. It's counterinsurgency; if someone has a bruised leg you don't massage the bruise, you go for the tendons that affect that muscle. If fixing education isn't working you need to fix everything that holds education as a system back. But suddenly it's an entire magnitude larger as far as problems go. Everyone is qualified to natter about what teachers and schools shoul and shouldn't do. The politics, economics and sociology involved are much harder to break into though. How does one even start to make a difference?

This sums up the main problems that I see.

[Blue1005]

The whole technology book idea i find to be exceptionally ignorant and a terrible idea. Ever give a child a piece of electronic equipment? What happened to it?

None of the greatest thinkers in history had an ipad or kindle to learn from...

Books are fine, it the students that are too stupid to open them that is the problem.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm going to attempt to sum up the general concesus of the thread now, mostly becaus I agree with it.

The problems facing the educational systems (note the plural) aren't entirely, or even mostly, inherent to the nature of education itself.

The biggest hindrance to making proper advances in the techniques, technology, and implementation of education is the fact that -all- of the educational systems are intrinsically attached to politics. As long as this continues to be true, which it will for the forseeable future, any significant changes to the systems will be excrutiatingly slow, if they happen at all.

Also of note: it's reasonably certain that no single arrangement for an educational system will be, or even can be, perfect due to the facts that different people learn differently and, at present at least, the exact nature of how learning happens is not entirely clear.

[Don Julio Anejo]

That depends a lot. Yeah, most of them want to be at college, but very few want to be in most of the mandatory classes they're forced through. Take my HIS 103 as an example. That's a freshman-level US history course, fills half the requirement of "two US history courses from this list", lecture hall of around two hundred students. And attendance is mandatory with that prof, she has a team of TAs who do nothing for the full hour except stand at a table in the corner with a massive seating chart (we have assigned seats) and take attendance; between the three of them they can usually finish in about fifty minutes. But, as attendance is mandatory and computers aren't banned, guess how many people bring their computers and play games or browse facebook or whatever it is kids these days do. Lots. And the ones who don't are probably on their phones. Two weeks ago the prof actually kind of flipped out and chewed out several guys in the front row, one of whom was wearing headphones, and all three of whom were online and ignoring her.
Oh hell, if a prof did that to me in class that I absolutely did not care about, only had to take for my humanities credit, had to sit in specific assigned spots in a giant lecture hall AND with mandatory attendance... I'd tear her a new one right there, and screw my grade (which she can't significantly lower anyway without getting in a lot of crap). Sorry, but some profs really should realize the world doesn't revolve around their subjects, especially if those subjects have no practical bearing whatsoever. I.e. in my mind it's excusable for math/English teachers in high school to behave this way, and it's absolutely not excusable for 1st-year history elective college profs to behave the same way.

[THAC0]

I really don't see why, besides funding, but that's politics and can't come into this discussion. Start teaching kids real things earlier, and they'll do fine learning proper English, history, sciences, and maths in high school. It's kind of awful that by college professors have given up on marking points off for bad grammar because the know it's a lost cause. If we just taught that basic stuff in grade school, it would be out of the way so we could teach proper gen ed fundamentals in high school.

More reasons than that. A big one is that schools must educate all children. This forum tends to fall a bit higher on the bell curve as far as intelligence goes. When you have to teach all, in classrooms of 30 kids, you can't teach everyone in the way that works best for them, nor can you teach to the highest.

[noparlpf]

Oh hell, if a prof did that to me in class that I absolutely did not care about, only had to take for my humanities credit, had to sit in specific assigned spots in a giant lecture hall AND with mandatory attendance... I'd tear her a new one right there, and screw my grade (which she can't significantly lower anyway without getting in a lot of crap). Sorry, but some profs really should realize the world doesn't revolve around their subjects, especially if those subjects have no practical bearing whatsoever. I.e. in my mind it's excusable for math/English teachers in high school to behave this way, and it's absolutely not excusable for 1st-year history elective college profs to behave the same way.

I mean, I can understand her perspective a little. Kids in the front row blatantly ignoring your lecture is pretty rude. On the other hand, assigned seats and mandatory attendance with no enforced rules about computers is kind of asking for it.
If I were a professor, I wouldn't bother with attendance or seating, but I would outright ban electronics (-1 point on next exam each time I catch you texting or whatever) unless the student went through the disability support services because they actually needed a computer to take notes.


More reasons than that. A big one is that schools must educate all children. This forum tends to fall a bit higher on the bell curve as far as intelligence goes. When you have to teach all, in classrooms of 30 kids, you can't teach everyone in the way that works best for them, nor can you teach to the highest.

In my experience that doesn't have to be a huge problem. After the first year or two the smart kids start moving up faster than the other kids. Kids learn what they're ready for at approximately the rate they can handle it. I know it can work because I've done it, somewhat. If that kind of system were properly in place, I'd be done with my BS by now and be working on grad school already.
And classrooms of thirty kids with one teacher doesn't work before maybe eighth grade, in my opinion. Obviously, we need more teachers as well as a better system. But you can't hire more teachers without more budget.

So what it boils down to is a society that doesn't really care about education or about fixing the flawed system. We're more concerned with celebrity gossip and what's on TV later.

[Chen]

The whole technology book idea i find to be exceptionally ignorant and a terrible idea. Ever give a child a piece of electronic equipment? What happened to it?

None of the greatest thinkers in history had an ipad or kindle to learn from...

Books are fine, it the students that are too stupid to open them that is the problem.

Yeah, I mean while we're at it why are we using this whole newfangled binding of pages together. We should be using papyrus scrolls just like the great minds of antiquity did.

As technology improves ebooks and tablets will be as common place as books and notepads are now.

[Astrella]

More reasons than that. A big one is that schools must educate all children. This forum tends to fall a bit higher on the bell curve as far as intelligence goes. When you have to teach all, in classrooms of 30 kids, you can't teach everyone in the way that works best for them, nor can you teach to the highest.

I think that's a problem of class sizes being so big that it basically prevents teachers for having much individual involvement with their pupils. Smaller classes would be a solution to that but that requires extra fundings and accommodations which isn't always easy.

My highschool was very overcrowded; by the time I left every subject specific room had been converted to a generic class room and they had even placed a few temporary classrooms in the courtyard which made the teaching suffer. As you said, different pupils need different teaching methods and levels of attention and it's hard to achieve that in big groups.

[THAC0]

In my experience that doesn't have to be a huge problem. After the first year or two the smart kids start moving up faster than the other kids. Kids learn what they're ready for at approximately the rate they can handle it. I know it can work because I've done it, somewhat. If that kind of system were properly in place, I'd be done with my BS by now and be working on grad school already.
And classrooms of thirty kids with one teacher doesn't work before maybe eighth grade, in my opinion. Obviously, we need more teachers as well as a better system. But you can't hire more teachers without more budget.

So what it boils down to is a society that doesn't really care about education or about fixing the flawed system. We're more concerned with celebrity gossip and what's on TV later.

Just wondering, what is your experience?

Kids don't get to "move up" faster than other kids in school. Sure, you get a bit of tracking in late middle school and high school, but that doesn't impact all subject areas and still isn't enough.

For the record, I am coming at this as a middle school and elementary school teacher. I also teach adults on a volunteer basis. My volunteer class ratio is never more than 1:4; my daily teaching ratio is almost always 1:30 or worse.

Small class sizes would help, but are simply logistically impossible in a public school setting. Just the sheer number of teachers required to reduce class sizes to an effective level in order to allow students to proceed at their own rate is impossible, and that's not even touching funding.

The problem with public education is it is overall (by its very nature) a one size fits all program. Yes, there can be individual variation within the system, but speaking as a whole.

[noparlpf]

Just wondering, what is your experience?

Kids don't get to "move up" faster than other kids in school. Sure, you get a bit of tracking in late middle school and high school, but that doesn't impact all subject areas and still isn't enough.

For the record, I am coming at this as a middle school and elementary school teacher. I also teach adults on a volunteer basis. My volunteer class ratio is never more than 1:4; my daily teaching ratio is almost always 1:30 or worse.

Small class sizes would help, but are simply logistically impossible in a public school setting. Just the sheer number of teachers required to reduce class sizes to an effective level in order to allow students to proceed at their own rate is impossible, and that's not even touching funding.

The problem with public education is it is overall (by its very nature) a one size fits all program. Yes, there can be individual variation within the system, but speaking as a whole.

The earliest I actually remember much of is transferring to a public grade school when I was six, where they made me repeat second grade because I was "too young" to be in third grade, and they only even let me repeat second grade instead of going backwards to first grade after a big battle with my mother. Working back, I'd spent the previous two years (first and second grade) at a private school, with standardised test scores to show it. Spent two and a half years in that public grade school, dropped out in the middle of fourth grade because as you say there was no customisation possible in that particular system and I was bored out of my mind because their approach to smart kids was, "stare at the ceiling and twiddle your thumbs; drawing or reading might distract other kids even though you're at the back of the room and doing it under your desk." The next year, I went to a private school for fifth through ninth grades in four years. Then I switched again to a public high school for three years, where the classes were generally too big (20-30 with one teacher, though AP Physics with twelve kids was the biggest AP Physics class ever at that school), but where kids could take classes at practically any level they could handle, including a wide variety of AP classes and several actual college courses credited by UConn but taught through the high school.

So, in public grade schools where there are limited budgets and too-big classes, yeah, letting kids learn at their own rates does not currently work. But, it could, if [politics and funding stuff] got sorted out and we as a society actually pushed for a good education system. I'd say maybe four to six kids per teacher in grade school (little kids are a handful, but you probably know that better than I), and a completely different system that actually fosters learning, instead of the silliness I only vaguely remember from public grade school and which I've mostly blocked out. Then classes of around ten from middle school-level up, set up like my private middle school and public high school were: kids study at their own levels. And only a few actually mandatory courses should exist, with the rest just falling into various categories that fill so many credits in whatever field up to whatever minimum they need to advance.

Oh, and shock collars to punish slacking are a good idea, seeing as I've wasted the last week procrastinating and now I have exams tomorrow. (Not serious.)

[SiuiS]

Start teaching kids real things earlier

Thread's over, you've won! You are now wizard-king of the playground.


Ok, first of all, I think that in order to really address this question we would need to go into politics - which we can't do - and we would also have to identify the exact problems that we would need to solve. Also, I assume that we're focusing on the US, but that's not necessarily the case. I mean, the OP says "worldwide" but educational systems already differ greatly across the world, and what might be effective for students in Finland isn't necessarily going to be effective in Korea due to cultural differences. Also, there will have to be differences between primary education (elementary school), secondary education (high school), and postsecondary education (college or university).

I disagree. I don't think cultural differences go quite that far, not in the majority of instances.



See, I don't find martial arts to be particularly relevant to my life. Granted, I don't feel that soccer, hockey, or wrestling are relevant to my life either, but schools seem to spend money on those things, too. Plus, economics, programming, and law all require a basis in varying levels of math, history, and English. I think the main issue here is that more teachers would have to be hired at the high school level to teach fewer students, which would cost more money.

Martial arts has the benefit of making most people smarter.




Done laughing/scoffing? No?

I'll wait.







Most folks are out of shape. A dedicated program that gets you closer to fit (PE doesn't really count, not when both weight lifting and fitness walking are considered equal), has a practical if grim application and is easier to continue outside of school than most sports is pretty beneficial.



Eh, if I had been required to pick a major, stick with it, and only take classes related to that major when I started college, I would have been miserable since I realized a year in that I was ill-suited the field I originally considered. I mean, I think I agree in the sense that I wish there was more choice in what I take - there are still several mandatory classes I have to take that I don't think will transfer. I also agree that a number of the requirements are simply there to patch up deficiencies in the high school system.

Under the system you're disputing you would have less classes in general, and when you switched to your new major you'd only have to make up a class or two. You'd literally have been no worse off in this system than the current one. If the bad is equal and the bet is better, seems good to me.


The whole technology book idea i find to be exceptionally ignorant and a terrible idea. Ever give a child a piece of electronic equipment? What happened to it?

None of the greatest thinkers in history had an ipad or kindle to learn from...

Books are fine, it the students that are too stupid to open them that is the problem.

None of the greatest thinkers in history had satellite radio. That doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy satellite radio.

I get your point, but Saying "it was good enough for people who didn't have any better" proves nothing. Socrates might jump at a laptop, you'd never know.



In my experience that doesn't have to be a huge problem. After the first year or two the smart kids start moving up faster than the other kids. Kids learn what they're ready for at approximately the rate they can handle it. I know it can work because I've done it, somewhat. If that kind of system were properly in place, I'd be done with my BS by now and be working on grad school already.
And classrooms of thirty kids with one teacher doesn't work before maybe eighth grade, in my opinion. Obviously, we need more teachers as well as a better system. But you can't hire more teachers without more budget.

So what it boils down to is a society that doesn't really care about education or about fixing the flawed system. We're more concerned with celebrity gossip and what's on TV later.

The system has to have an allowance otherwise smarter Ida are restricted to the same materials.

And I don't think it's so much that we don't really care. I think there's a big sense o letting the school do its thing without interference though, which is dumb. You should further your kid's education yourself when you can.

[Blue1005]

None of the greatest thinkers in history had satellite radio. That doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy satellite radio.

I get your point, but Saying "it was good enough for people who didn't have any better" proves nothing. Socrates might jump at a laptop, you'd never know.



.


That is in fact true, but the mere fact that he did not have an ipad or laptop means that people can in fact learn and think without them. If these kids want to use these devices the parents can pay for them, not my tax dollars.

[Drolyt]

I'll throw in my two cents, although I'm doubtful how much good it does to talk about these issues on an internet forum. Especially since politics is verboten, so it would be difficult for us to act on anything (well, nothing stops us from individually acting). Ah well.

"Muad'Dib learned rapidly because his first training was in how to learn. And the first lesson of all was the basic trust that he could learn. It's shocking to find how many people do not believe they can learn, and how many more believe learning to be difficult. Muad'Dib knew that every experience carries its lesson."
-Dune


I'm beginning to wonder if our educational systems (worldwide) couldn't stand some improvement in terms of efficiency. Since this kind of came up tangentially in another thread recently, I thought I'd give a brief run-down on the points that come to mind for me.
No doubt it could.


* Evidence for the effectiveness of homework in many subjects appears to be lacking. Finnland and Korea seem to have similar levels of educational achievement, and the Finns do a lot less homework.
I think the bigger problem with homework is that it is mostly busy work. I think a better model is the flipped classroom, where materials like online videos and applets (and of course the more traditional approach of reading) are done when homework would normally be done and more interactive learning can be done in the classroom instead of hours of lecturing. Homework does help in some subjects like math and writing where practice is the best way to learn, but a lot of homework is just inefficient rote learning.

* WTF is up with 40-minute class periods? For me, it was usually just long enough to get really stuck into a subject and then have your concentration broken.
They had longer class times at my high school, almost two hours. I don't know how much it really helped but the advantages were less time lost moving between classes and the ability to do things that wouldn't fit in the shorter class period, such as long experiments or movies. The math teachers didn't like it because students who don't do math every day start to forget what they learned.

* I remember, in College, that a lot of the lecturers would refuse to release their full lecture notes online because the students wouldn't show up in class otherwise. My basic attitude was "If you're not adding any value that isn't present in the online notes, something I can probably get from wikipedia for free, or a book for a fraction of the cost, how do you justify your ****ing salary?"
Odd, most professors I've known consider it your job to be in class and don't lift a finger to get you to come, other than trying to make their lectures good. Lectures are, in my experience, an important component of the learning experience. As for online lecture notes, they are useful, but so much exists already on the internet it doesn't really matter any more. Unless you are studying a fairly obscure topic at least a dozen professors have lecture notes available for you on the internet, and many universities don't bother to password protect them. Some even release notes under Creative Commons, like at MIT OCW.

* This isn't to say that genuinely high-quality lecturers don't exist, particularly in the area of hands-on tutorials, labs and demonstrations. Indeed, high-quality teachers in smaller classrooms appear to be one of the more important factors in determining educational outcomes. (Personally, without naming examples, I'd be perfectly willing to give teachers a more competitive wage scale if I was also able to fire the incompetents.)
This one is basically impossible to talk about without breaking board rules, so I'll move on.

* There are certain subjects that you *have* to acquire basic proficiency in, because you need them to acquire further knowledge and function independently (math, literacy, rudimentary social etiquette, housekeeping/DIY, etc.) But having a wide range of compulsory subjects seems largely pointless. Aside from the rote regurgitation of facts, kids rarely retain knowledge of or interest in subjects that they didn't have some degree of interest in before.
I disagree, although I'm not necessarily fond of what the required subjects are in most schools. I think students should be exposed to the huge variety of human knowledge, and in particular should have much more exposure to the social sciences and humanities. Every student should take classes in logic/critical thinking (with a focus on informal logic rather than formal systems), ethics and political philosophy, political science, economics, psychology, sociology, history, and so on, the idea being to teach students about themselves and society and how to live as best as is possible. I also think "English" (or the regional equivalent) should be replaced with a broader cultural studies program which would expose students to classical literature, theater, film, music, art, etc. Mathematics and Science need to be emphasized but the focus needs to be shifted to understanding the basic concepts, such as the scientific method (which is not a list of steps on how to conduct an experiment; some philosophy of science might be a good idea) and mathematical logic, as well as the great ideas of science like the modern synthesis in biology, instead of memorizing useless facts like the name of some random bone or organ. As for some of what you mentioned, I don't think housekeeping or DIY should be taught in school, at least it shouldn't be mandatory.

* Adults seem to be under the impression that kids automatically learn stuff faster, but kids have far less discipline. And the reality of modern economies is that, in many jobs, you're going to have to retrain yourself every few years regardless. This idea of stuffing students' heads with a certain collection of knowledge, and they'll be set for life, is hopelessly outdated. (I reckon that direct training of techniques for self-directed learning- e.g, memory tricks, time planning, philosophy of science- might be useful in itself.)

Which is why I don't think primary and secondary education should be career focused. Yes some basic skills can and should be taught in schools, such as reading, writing, oral communication, mathematics, critical thinking and so on, but for the most part career training should take place in tertiary education, or perhaps an apprenticeship program. As for teaching students how to learn, I agree with that.

* The emphasis of educational curricula is wrong for many students. A lot of people learn facts far more easily when they see some direct connection to practical applications of that knowledge. I think apprenticeship schemes with many industries or professions, and/or private-sector collaborations, need to start earlier and be better supported.
Perhaps, but I disagree with the idea that school is primarily about learning a trade.

* What is up with all the textbooks? If you live in the western world, at least, odds are 9-to-1 you have access to a flatscreen device or laptop of some kind. And if you don't, schools could always give you a Kindle.
I hate reading on a computer screen. Books are so much easier on the eyes. E-Ink devices like the Nook or Kindle are great middle grounds, but I think the students should be allowed to choose how to access their texts. More options is a good idea.

* If you spent less money trying to teach kids things that are likely to be irrelevant to their lives, and which they almost certainly won't retain, you should, in principle, have more money to spend on teaching subjects which do interest them. Hell, you could expand the range significantly- programming, economics, law, martial arts, exploration, etc. etc. etc.
Perhaps.

* Remarkably few people seem to have consistently enjoyed school. I'm mystified that there isn't more pressure to actually overhaul the damn thing.
People don't like change. Saying more than that might break the rules.

[Don Julio Anejo]

One of the problems with discussing education reform is that if you ask 30 people what kids should learn, you'll get 30 answers. 28 will probably be biased based on personal preferences or things the askees were good/bad at.

For example, I think most knowledge should be practical. I.e. most kids don't care about theory and won't get much out of it. On the other hand, either skillsets, or crystallized knowledge that can affect future decisions is extremely useful. One of the most useful skills I learned in high school was how to do taxes. One of the least useful things I learned was plant anatomy (this is a stamen; this is a pistil; this is a bee, when they get together sunshine happy times happen and baby flowers appear); and I'm a biochemistry major. I'd much rather kids learned something more obscure, but infinitely more useful. For example, basic pharmacology so people who listen would know JUST why it's a bad idea to mix booze with pretty much any other drug (whether illegal, prescription or over the counter).

But... everyone has an opinion, and most of them are probably correct in their reasoning. I'm of the opinion that if something is useless, I shouldn't be forced to spend more than the bare minimum of time on it (enough to get me interested if I want to learn it on my own, but no more). Many other here have mentioned exposing kids to humanities, social sciences, economics, etc. And there's nothing wrong with either view.

Most will agree that kids have to learn at least some basics - modern society assumes its members to have some specific knowledge that's usually taught in school. So if there's nothing specifically wrong with stuff we learn in school except personal preference, why bother turning the curriculum 180 degrees?

Completely agree on homework though, most of it is mindless busywork assigned with the logic that homework is good for homework's sake.

[Drolyt]

One of the problems with discussing education reform is that if you ask 30 people what kids should learn, you'll get 30 answers. 28 will probably be biased based on personal preferences or things the askees were good/bad at.
Disagreeing doesn't mean everyone is equally right. More likely that they are equally wrong. But yes, I do think most of the time when people are asked what students should be taught in school they don't really think the issue through. This is not so much because they are stupid as because they haven't been presented with the necessary information. Fundamental disagreements about the purpose of education is also an issue.

For example, I think most knowledge should be practical. I.e. most kids don't care about theory and won't get much out of it. On the other hand, either skillsets, or crystallized knowledge that can affect future decisions is extremely useful. One of the most useful skills I learned in high school was how to do taxes. One of the least useful things I learned was plant anatomy (this is a stamen; this is a pistil; this is a bee, when they get together sunshine happy times happen and baby flowers appear); and I'm a biochemistry major. I'd much rather kids learned something more obscure, but infinitely more useful. For example, basic pharmacology so people who listen would know JUST why it's a bad idea to mix booze with pretty much any other drug (whether illegal, prescription or over the counter).
Which is why I think the focus should switch to general principles and understanding the great unifying ideas of science/philosophy/etc. rather than memorizing facts. I also think that general education should be very broad, exposing kids to a wide variety of ideas.

But... everyone has an opinion, and most of them are probably correct in their reasoning. I'm of the opinion that if something is useless, I shouldn't be forced to spend more than the bare minimum of time on it (enough to get me interested if I want to learn it on my own, but no more). Many other here have mentioned exposing kids to humanities, social sciences, economics, etc. And there's nothing wrong with either view.
I disagree. I'm not sure who's wrong, but everyone can't be right. I'd sooner accept that my own views are wrong than accept that somehow everyone is right even when they fundamentally disagree. If your claim is that it doesn't matter how or what we teach, then why do we even require kids to go to school?

Most will agree that kids have to learn at least some basics - modern society assumes its members to have some specific knowledge that's usually taught in school. So if there's nothing specifically wrong with stuff we learn in school except personal preference, why bother turning the curriculum 180 degrees?
Well, at least with the curriculum I favor (which I haven't fully spelled out in this thread) the goal would be to expose students to a wide variety of knowledge and worldviews, a large historical overview of science, philosophy, art/literature, world religions, mathematics, and so on. The idea isn't to teach what I think is important, but to expose students to the great ideas humanity has come up with.

[SaintRidley]

One of the frustrations I have with education is the idea that the student is a customer.

Let's set aside the pay to play aspect of education, because everything about that is politics that I really do not want to touch for fear of the banhammer descending like a ton of bricks. What you are paying for is to engage in a contract wherein your teacher presents knowledge. What you do with it is your business.

You can pick your nose and do nothing and get an F and that's nobody's problem but your own. Maybe you shouldn't be sitting around picking your nose. You can work at the class, and you can pass if you actually learn something and demonstrate it. Depending on your demonstration of knowledge, you might get an A or a C, or a B or a D. Whatever. If you don't learn something, your professor is there to answer questions and has office hours for a reason. It's hard to give individuated attention when you're dealing with a class of anywhere from fifteen to thirty students, hence the office hours. If you put in the effort, you'll get a grade. And you will earn it.

That's the thing that student-customers seem to forget. You pay, you get your A because you did what was required of you and what do you mean I earned a C because I merely displayed basic competency and not the nuanced grasp of the concepts needed to earn an A? I paid for the class, I sat in your lectures, I did the work, I deserve an A!

No. You earn your grade. You don't start from an A and lose points, you start from ZERO and earn points. Earning your grade. A lost concept among many students I've sat beside. And it's always some personal vendetta on the part of the professor - "She doesn't like me, she disagrees with me, she's biased against me because X." It's as if you contribute nothing to your grade. Newsflash - you make your grade, not the professor. And if your professor makes your grade? They're probably a terrible professor and the tenure process is meant to weed those ones out.

Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes you wind up with a cruddy professor with tenure. And no, getting an F, or a C, or a B+ (But I'm an A student! I always get an A from other professors!) in a class does not prove the professor to be one of the cruddy ones. They may simply have something called standards. It might be hard to tell at first, if you're used to our grade-inflated, pass-you-along and punt you out of high school system.

Education is screwed at pretty much all levels. College professors have a number of students with no idea how to comport themselves in a classroom, with unrealistic expectations of how they should be graded because they've been playing on easy mode. High schools just passing students along, middle schools passing students along, elementary schools just passing students along. Can't fail children, their parents will come and demand an explanation for why you, the teacher, failed their child, who is oh so special and brilliant, don't you see it?

So we pass them along, regardless of their demonstrated ability. We make them someone else's problem. We round up, we cut corners, we assure them all that they're brilliant in their own special ways and we avoid the dreaded red pen and F to preserve their precious self-esteem. They'll hate school and learning if we do that! It's intimidating! Guess what! They hate school anyway, because it's a cesspit filled with people they loathe who loathe them back. We don't care if they learn anything along the way, as long as we get them through school to get that piece of paper that says they got pooped out of the educational sphincter. On to the workforce you go, we tell them.

But what's that? No appreciable job skills? Well, I guess it's off to college for you. Have fun! Spit you out of there with another piece of paper that declares you qualified, what for doesn't matter. You're probably not getting a job in your field anyway, so don't you feel silly? And if you decide graduate school is right for you, you'd better really love what you go for and either have cash to burn or get the school to pay your way, because otherwise you're just better off getting a job now to pay off that hefty student loan bill.

And if you decide you want to be a professor? Well, here's hoping you don't have much of a desire to make money, because you'll probably only ever get work as an adjunct being paid per course and considered contingent faculty, fired and rehired after each year or two so you never have to be given benefits like sick days or pension. If you're lucky enough to get a full-time position, good for you. You might have a shot at tenure, if such a thing still exists, and thus job security. Just don't step in the adjuncts, they're undesirable and kind of smelly.

Okay, that felt good to vent. Rant over.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Disagreeing doesn't mean everyone is equally right. More likely that they are equally wrong.
True. Ironically, a lot of the time when everyone has a different opinion, everyone is wrong, and that in itself is what makes doing something difficult - everyone knows what's right better than everyone else.


Which is why I think the focus should switch to general principles and understanding the great unifying ideas of science/philosophy/etc. rather than memorizing facts. I also think that general education should be very broad, exposing kids to a wide variety of ideas.
I actually gave this quite a lot of thought a while ago, but then I realized there's only so much education you can cram in. The problem is purely a biological one - kids' brains don't develop critical thinking the way we imagine it and have trouble grasping significantly abstract concepts until around the age of 12 (short proof version: see Piaget; long proof version: search psycINFO on abstract reasoning development). That only leaves 3-5 years of education (depending on a country) to cram in critical thinking, as well as the required amount of crystallized knowledge and skillsets that no-one allows children to learn.

If your claim is that it doesn't matter how or what we teach, then why do we even require kids to go to school?
First and foremost to keep them busy while their parents are away at work. With the secondary goal where they hopefully learn something useful. Now that "something useful" also serves as a baseline of "what every adult person is expected to know" in various settings.


Well, at least with the curriculum I favor (which I haven't fully spelled out in this thread) the goal would be to expose students to a wide variety of knowledge and worldviews, a large historical overview of science, philosophy, art/literature, world religions, mathematics, and so on. The idea isn't to teach what I think is important, but to expose students to the great ideas humanity has come up with.
While I do like the idea in principle, I also know that 90% of students won't care about any of this and will do the bare minimum such as copying the right answers on homework assignments (in best cases, pulling them from the text) and won't learn anything anyway. So might as well teach them something practically useful they will at hopefully use and leave critical thinking for college/university for those who actually want to learn. Yep, I'm a cynic :frown:

The alternative is a complete change in general societal attitude where both knowledge and learning are respected; as well as a Star Trek-esque society where people actually want to better themselves for its own sake.

[Drolyt]

The alternative is a complete change in general societal attitude where both knowledge and learning are respected; as well as a Star Trek-esque society where people actually want to better themselves for its own sake.
Ah, but this is my goal. :smallsmile:. I'll have more to contribute when I wake up, but I should say that I see your point about there simply not being enough time. That is why, at least in the US, some of that is pushed off onto universities (even engineering schools require some "HASS (humanities arts and social sciences)" courses, I believe it is required for a school's engineering program to be accredited), although I understand that in many other countries a US style "Liberal Education" is less popular. It is becoming less popular in the US too, which I don't think is a good thing.

[jseah]

I kind of wish our education had some hands on practical stuff. I still don't know how to build a radio even though I have gone through physics year 1 for the theoretical background for a high and low pass filter.


Yeah, I mean while we're at it why are we using this whole newfangled binding of pages together. We should be using papyrus scrolls just like the great minds of antiquity did.

As technology improves ebooks and tablets will be as common place as books and notepads are now.
Speaking of which, I loved how my university classes had us print our own notes (which were really more research articles than notes). I never bothered to staple or bind them since the loose sheets were far better for (dis)organization than a book-like format.

Seriously, I would read a new paper with the main review spread out on the table for reference. It was great and far better than paper books and even better than reading it online.

[Toastkart]

I'm beginning to wonder if our educational systems (worldwide) couldn't stand some improvement in terms of efficiency. Since this kind of came up tangentially in another thread recently, I thought I'd give a brief run-down on the points that come to mind for me.

I believe there is a lot of room for improvement. I also think that many of the problems in improving education aren't as insurmountable as they are often made out to be. The biggest problem, overcrowding and horrible student/teacher ratios, is the most difficult, but just because we can't easily solve that problem doesn't mean other improvements can't be made.


* Evidence for the effectiveness of homework in many subjects appears to be lacking. Finnland and Korea seem to have similar levels of educational achievement, and the Finns do a lot less homework.

A lot of this depends on subject and type of homework. Everyone is also a little different. 100 math problems every night doesn't help me learn what I need to learn to get math. Writing essays, stories, etc. does help to be done out of class, as the solitude and quiet I need to do my best work can't be found even in the most sedate classroom.


* I remember, in College, that a lot of the lecturers would refuse to release their full lecture notes online because the students wouldn't show up in class otherwise. My basic attitude was "If you're not adding any value that isn't present in the online notes, something I can probably get from wikipedia for free, or a book for a fraction of the cost, how do you justify your ****ing salary?"

I generally have only run into this problem in required classes, from professors who know their classes are required, but disliked and are basically bad professors all around. That is to say, very few.


* This isn't to say that genuinely high-quality lecturers don't exist, particularly in the area of hands-on tutorials, labs and demonstrations. Indeed, high-quality teachers in smaller classrooms appear to be one of the more important factors in determining educational outcomes. (Personally, without naming examples, I'd be perfectly willing to give teachers a more competitive wage scale if I was also able to fire the incompetents.)

I think the major problem is that we're still using the lecture as the primary or dominant form of learning. Something more like problem based learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_based_learning) could go a long way toward improving critical thinking, self-directed learning, cooperative problem solving skills, etc. Lectures are an info-dump, nothing more. PBL is active learning.


* There are certain subjects that you *have* to acquire basic proficiency in, because you need them to acquire further knowledge and function independently (math, literacy, rudimentary social etiquette, housekeeping/DIY, etc.) But having a wide range of compulsory subjects seems largely pointless. Aside from the rote regurgitation of facts, kids rarely retain knowledge of or interest in subjects that they didn't have some degree of interest in before.

On this I agree, but at the same time there is a lot of wiggle room on what is or isn't necessary for basic proficiency. There's also certainly room for streamlining the process.

As an example, when I was in school, 3rd grade math was multiplication, 4th was division, and 5th was using both together. If we had spent less time memorizing multiplication tables and more time actually learning how to work out multiplication, then I probably wouldn't have done so badly at it, and all three years could have been taught in one.



* Adults seem to be under the impression that kids automatically learn stuff faster, but kids have far less discipline. And the reality of modern economies is that, in many jobs, you're going to have to retrain yourself every few years regardless. This idea of stuffing students' heads with a certain collection of knowledge, and they'll be set for life, is hopelessly outdated. (I reckon that direct training of techniques for self-directed learning- e.g, memory tricks, time planning, philosophy of science- might be useful in itself.)

Agreed. I think it is just as important, if not more important, to be able to critically evaluate information and sources and how to apply them than it is to memorize a body of knowledge. A body of knowledge that is ever changing.


* The emphasis of educational curricula is wrong for many students. A lot of people learn facts far more easily when they see some direct connection to practical applications of that knowledge. I think apprenticeship schemes with many industries or professions, and/or private-sector collaborations, need to start earlier and be better supported.

I agree with the first part, but I'm not so sure about the second. It's hard enough finding and getting internships at the college level.

On the whole, though, I think I personally would have done better in math if it had been less abstract learning and more practical application. Even word problems were not practical, as they were just an exercise in sifting through unnecessary information to find the defined problem rather than working with an undefined problem and coming up with a solution. To this day I have a difficult time figuring out which formula, equation, or statistical method to apply to a given situation because that was never taught throughout my school career, even into college, I was merely given the formula, equation, etc. and taught the process of solving them.


* If you spent less money trying to teach kids things that are likely to be irrelevant to their lives, and which they almost certainly won't retain, you should, in principle, have more money to spend on teaching subjects which do interest them. Hell, you could expand the range significantly- programming, economics, law, martial arts, exploration, etc. etc. etc.
Again, I agree in principle, but there are huge arguments to be made about what is or isn't irrelevant. I think too much emphasis is placed on math and science. As I mentioned, I think how many math classes that I had to take could have been trimmed down. And specialized subjects like trig, calculus, and even chemistry, should be optional rather than required.


* Remarkably few people seem to have consistently enjoyed school. I'm mystified that there isn't more pressure to actually overhaul the damn thing.
Why would you want to do that? As it stands, school is a perfect nine-to-five dead end job simulator.

“The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality” ~ Henry Louis Mencken


I disagree, although I'm not necessarily fond of what the required subjects are in most schools. I think students should be exposed to the huge variety of human knowledge, and in particular should have much more exposure to the social sciences and humanities. Every student should take classes in logic/critical thinking (with a focus on informal logic rather than formal systems), ethics and political philosophy, political science, economics, psychology, sociology, history, and so on, the idea being to teach students about themselves and society and how to live as best as is possible.

See, I don't think what you're talking about and what Cary is talking about are mutually exclusive. At least in the school system I went through, the big 4 (math, science, english, social studies/history) were the required classes, and most everything else was not. 13 years of those four types of classes is not exposure to the breadth or depth of human knowledge. Even once you get into high school and have a bit more freedom to choose what classes you are taking, there's little room to pursue any given subject for more than one semester/ year.

So, to sum up: I don't think the lecture format is conducive to learning in general. PBL more actively engages the students in their own learning and their own interest. A wide range of courses should be required, but that's not currently where we are. Creativity in learning should not be underestimated.

I haven't finished watching these videos, but Isaac Asimov (http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/01/28/isaac-asimov-creativity-education-science/) had some really interesting ideas on education, and I wish education as a whole could take some of that to heart.

[IamL]

Why would you want to do that? As it stands, school is a perfect nine-to-five dead end job simulator.

You, sir, are a genius.

[noparlpf]

That is in fact true, but the mere fact that he did not have an ipad or laptop means that people can in fact learn and think without them. If these kids want to use these devices the parents can pay for them, not my tax dollars.

Personally I disapprove of the idea of e-readers or computers in schools. It teaches kids how to use a computer to solve problems, not how to solve the problems themselves.
On the other hand, your argument could just as easily go a step further and say, "Why back in my day, we never had pens and paper! And we did fine! They can do without too!"


One of the frustrations I have with education is the idea that the student is a customer.

Let's set aside the pay to play aspect of education, because everything about that is politics that I really do not want to touch for fear of the banhammer descending like a ton of bricks. What you are paying for is to engage in a contract wherein your teacher presents knowledge. What you do with it is your business.

You can pick your nose and do nothing and get an F and that's nobody's problem but your own. Maybe you shouldn't be sitting around picking your nose. You can work at the class, and you can pass if you actually learn something and demonstrate it. Depending on your demonstration of knowledge, you might get an A or a C, or a B or a D. Whatever. If you don't learn something, your professor is there to answer questions and has office hours for a reason. It's hard to give individuated attention when you're dealing with a class of anywhere from fifteen to thirty students, hence the office hours. If you put in the effort, you'll get a grade. And you will earn it.

That's the thing that student-customers seem to forget. You pay, you get your A because you did what was required of you and what do you mean I earned a C because I merely displayed basic competency and not the nuanced grasp of the concepts needed to earn an A? I paid for the class, I sat in your lectures, I did the work, I deserve an A!

No. You earn your grade. You don't start from an A and lose points, you start from ZERO and earn points. Earning your grade. A lost concept among many students I've sat beside. And it's always some personal vendetta on the part of the professor - "She doesn't like me, she disagrees with me, she's biased against me because X." It's as if you contribute nothing to your grade. Newsflash - you make your grade, not the professor. And if your professor makes your grade? They're probably a terrible professor and the tenure process is meant to weed those ones out.

Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes you wind up with a cruddy professor with tenure. And no, getting an F, or a C, or a B+ (But I'm an A student! I always get an A from other professors!) in a class does not prove the professor to be one of the cruddy ones. They may simply have something called standards. It might be hard to tell at first, if you're used to our grade-inflated, pass-you-along and punt you out of high school system.

Education is screwed at pretty much all levels. College professors have a number of students with no idea how to comport themselves in a classroom, with unrealistic expectations of how they should be graded because they've been playing on easy mode. High schools just passing students along, middle schools passing students along, elementary schools just passing students along. Can't fail children, their parents will come and demand an explanation for why you, the teacher, failed their child, who is oh so special and brilliant, don't you see it?

So we pass them along, regardless of their demonstrated ability. We make them someone else's problem. We round up, we cut corners, we assure them all that they're brilliant in their own special ways and we avoid the dreaded red pen and F to preserve their precious self-esteem. They'll hate school and learning if we do that! It's intimidating! Guess what! They hate school anyway, because it's a cesspit filled with people they loathe who loathe them back. We don't care if they learn anything along the way, as long as we get them through school to get that piece of paper that says they got pooped out of the educational sphincter. On to the workforce you go, we tell them.

But what's that? No appreciable job skills? Well, I guess it's off to college for you. Have fun! Spit you out of there with another piece of paper that declares you qualified, what for doesn't matter. You're probably not getting a job in your field anyway, so don't you feel silly? And if you decide graduate school is right for you, you'd better really love what you go for and either have cash to burn or get the school to pay your way, because otherwise you're just better off getting a job now to pay off that hefty student loan bill.

And if you decide you want to be a professor? Well, here's hoping you don't have much of a desire to make money, because you'll probably only ever get work as an adjunct being paid per course and considered contingent faculty, fired and rehired after each year or two so you never have to be given benefits like sick days or pension. If you're lucky enough to get a full-time position, good for you. You might have a shot at tenure, if such a thing still exists, and thus job security. Just don't step in the adjuncts, they're undesirable and kind of smelly.

Okay, that felt good to vent. Rant over.

Occasionally there are actually teachers who are biased against certain students. A kid I tutored back in high school showed me an exam he wanted help going over to see where he went wrong. He also had his friend's exam because he had been going over some parts himself. One problem, he was marked wrong for the exact same answer his friend put that was right. And, the teacher gave him -2 for not putting down the date, but gave his friend -1 for not putting down the date. (Kind of silly to mark points off for not writing the date. Seriously, why?)

Anyway, main point: My mum teaches at a private middle school. She gets this crap all the time. She's not allowed to fail students, because their rich parents are paying money for their educationgrades.

[IamL]

Occasionally there are actually teachers who are biased against certain students. A kid I tutored back in high school showed me an exam he wanted help going over to see where he went wrong. He also had his friend's exam because he had been going over some parts himself. One problem, he was marked wrong for the exact same answer his friend put that was right. And, the teacher gave him -2 for not putting down the date, but gave his friend -1 for not putting down the date. (Kind of silly to mark points off for not writing the date. Seriously, why?)

Anyway, main point: My mum teaches at a private middle school. She gets this crap all the time. She's not allowed to fail students, because their rich parents are paying money for their educationgrades.

Yes, some teachers are biased, and yes, that sucks, but at some point the student has to take responsibility for his/her grade. If you answer a test question correctly, they can't mark it incorrect without you being able to bring it to their attention.

One of the frustrations I have with education is the idea that the student is a customer.

Let's set aside the pay to play aspect of education, because everything about that is politics that I really do not want to touch for fear of the banhammer descending like a ton of bricks. What you are paying for is to engage in a contract wherein your teacher presents knowledge. What you do with it is your business.

You can pick your nose and do nothing and get an F and that's nobody's problem but your own. Maybe you shouldn't be sitting around picking your nose. You can work at the class, and you can pass if you actually learn something and demonstrate it. Depending on your demonstration of knowledge, you might get an A or a C, or a B or a D. Whatever. If you don't learn something, your professor is there to answer questions and has office hours for a reason. It's hard to give individuated attention when you're dealing with a class of anywhere from fifteen to thirty students, hence the office hours. If you put in the effort, you'll get a grade. And you will earn it.

That's the thing that student-customers seem to forget. You pay, you get your A because you did what was required of you and what do you mean I earned a C because I merely displayed basic competency and not the nuanced grasp of the concepts needed to earn an A? I paid for the class, I sat in your lectures, I did the work, I deserve an A!

No. You earn your grade. You don't start from an A and lose points, you start from ZERO and earn points. Earning your grade. A lost concept among many students I've sat beside. And it's always some personal vendetta on the part of the professor - "She doesn't like me, she disagrees with me, she's biased against me because X." It's as if you contribute nothing to your grade. Newsflash - you make your grade, not the professor. And if your professor makes your grade? They're probably a terrible professor and the tenure process is meant to weed those ones out.

Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes you wind up with a cruddy professor with tenure. And no, getting an F, or a C, or a B+ (But I'm an A student! I always get an A from other professors!) in a class does not prove the professor to be one of the cruddy ones. They may simply have something called standards. It might be hard to tell at first, if you're used to our grade-inflated, pass-you-along and punt you out of high school system.

Education is screwed at pretty much all levels. College professors have a number of students with no idea how to comport themselves in a classroom, with unrealistic expectations of how they should be graded because they've been playing on easy mode. High schools just passing students along, middle schools passing students along, elementary schools just passing students along. Can't fail children, their parents will come and demand an explanation for why you, the teacher, failed their child, who is oh so special and brilliant, don't you see it?

So we pass them along, regardless of their demonstrated ability. We make them someone else's problem. We round up, we cut corners, we assure them all that they're brilliant in their own special ways and we avoid the dreaded red pen and F to preserve their precious self-esteem. They'll hate school and learning if we do that! It's intimidating! Guess what! They hate school anyway, because it's a cesspit filled with people they loathe who loathe them back. We don't care if they learn anything along the way, as long as we get them through school to get that piece of paper that says they got pooped out of the educational sphincter. On to the workforce you go, we tell them.

...so....true. There was a person in my fifth grade class who got a 27 on an open-notebook science test WHEN HE HAD HIS NOTEBOOK and still blamed the teacher for his bad grade. People shirk all of their responsibilities as a student and still blame the teacher for a bad grade. But teachers have to pass them, or else they'll complain that they're being biased against.

[Drolyt]

I think the major problem is that we're still using the lecture as the primary or dominant form of learning. Something more like problem based learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_based_learning) could go a long way toward improving critical thinking, self-directed learning, cooperative problem solving skills, etc. Lectures are an info-dump, nothing more. PBL is active learning.
Research has shown that you can't begin learning that way, students just flail around trying to figure it out. Instead, you teach the material the traditional way first (lectures, textbooks, worked problems, etc.) then move into hands on and experiments. Ultimately though I agree with you to an extent, I just think it needs to be a more mixed approach rather than a radical shift to a new paradigm. Besides, different people learn different ways, so using different approaches is nice.

On this I agree, but at the same time there is a lot of wiggle room on what is or isn't necessary for basic proficiency. There's also certainly room for streamlining the process.

As an example, when I was in school, 3rd grade math was multiplication, 4th was division, and 5th was using both together. If we had spent less time memorizing multiplication tables and more time actually learning how to work out multiplication, then I probably wouldn't have done so badly at it, and all three years could have been taught in one.
On this I strongly agree. I think being able to multiply is important, and I'm not even against multiplication tables, but the way it is done seems bass ackwards to me. First teach how multiplication is done and how you arrive at it (2 x 3 is 2 + 2 +2 etc.), then after using it for a couple years you can whip out the multiplication tables, since by then students will have memorized most of it anyways from using it so much.

Agreed. I think it is just as important, if not more important, to be able to critically evaluate information and sources and how to apply them than it is to memorize a body of knowledge. A body of knowledge that is ever changing.

I somewhat agree, but I think too much emphasis is placed on this "ever changing" body of knowledge by many people. You often hear how what you learn now will be obsolete in 10 years. Bollocks. So much of the important stuff doesn't change. I mean, consider what you might learn in a good biology class. Evolution by natural selection. How genes are inherited and how they are expressed. How the basic chemical structures of our bodies, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and so on, function. How simple structures combine to form more complex structures (atoms to molecules to organelles to cells to tissues to organs to organ systems to organisms to populations to communities to ecosystems to biomes to the entire biosphere). How the human body is affected by diet, exercise, and drugs. How you can use that information to promote better health. And so on. This kind of stuff is based on rock solid scientific evidence, sure we don't know everything yet, but these basics are not going to change, certainly not so rapidly as to make them useless within our lifetimes.

An even better example might be the humanities. Although new ideas are added to philosophy, new discoveries are made in history, and new great works of art and literature are made day by day, Shakespeare doesn't change. Hume doesn't change. Van Gogh doesn't change. World War II, and all the messy politics thereof doesn't change. These are all things people should at least be exposed to, and some of it should be studied in depth.

On the whole, though, I think I personally would have done better in math if it had been less abstract learning and more practical application. Even word problems were not practical, as they were just an exercise in sifting through unnecessary information to find the defined problem rather than working with an undefined problem and coming up with a solution. To this day I have a difficult time figuring out which formula, equation, or statistical method to apply to a given situation because that was never taught throughout my school career, even into college, I was merely given the formula, equation, etc. and taught the process of solving them.
I agree for the most part. Seeing how this stuff is actually used would be very useful for most students.

Again, I agree in principle, but there are huge arguments to be made about what is or isn't irrelevant. I think too much emphasis is placed on math and science. As I mentioned, I think how many math classes that I had to take could have been trimmed down. And specialized subjects like trig, calculus, and even chemistry, should be optional rather than required.
I disagree, but sort of also agree. I think there isn't enough emphasis placed on math and science, but even more fundamentally the emphasis is wrong. Trigonometry and Calculus are incredibly useful and important tools, and I hesitate to remove them from the high school curriculum (they should at least be electives) because they are necessary in so many fields, but the majority of people would be better served learning mathematics that actually affects us outside of our fields. Primarily this is probability, statistics, and mathematical reasoning/logic. Too many people do not have these basic reasoning skills to help them analyze the huge masses of data we receive every day. Without these skills it is too easy for people to be deceived by statistics.

On the science side, I think this (http://www.youtube.com/course?list=EC095393D5B42B2266) class, Physics For Future Presidents, at UC Berkeley is a great example of how general science should be taught. More to the point, the emphasis in general needs to be on:

1. Scientific Reasoning. Most people do not know how to interpret experimental results, or how to go about testing whether a hypothesis is correct. To this end I think a lot more class time should be devoted to experiments.

2. The Great Ideas that show what humans are capable of and how far we have come.

3. Practical application. The Physics For Future Presidents class is explicitly designed to include the information that a future president would want to know in order to navigate policy. This is, I think, how all education should be structured.

See, I don't think what you're talking about and what Cary is talking about are mutually exclusive. At least in the school system I went through, the big 4 (math, science, english, social studies/history) were the required classes, and most everything else was not. 13 years of those four types of classes is not exposure to the breadth or depth of human knowledge. Even once you get into high school and have a bit more freedom to choose what classes you are taking, there's little room to pursue any given subject for more than one semester/ year.
The problem with the big four is that the emphasis is wrong. I've already covered math and science, so lets hit English. English focuses too much on books written by dead white males. Don't get me wrong, I love reading things written by dead white males. But I also love film, theater, graphic narrative, music, and the visual arts. Students will be far more interested and get far more out of the learning experience if they are exposed to a wide variety of culture instead of a narrow category of "classic literature" (although I think that is important too). Also, at the high school level at least cultural/literary studies needs to be disentangled from learning how to read and write.

As for social studies, that is the worst, at least in the US. It is bad for the same reason it is hard to talk about it on these boards: nothing controversial or upsetting can ever be discussed. This means ignoring very interesting results in sociology, psychology, history, etc. in favor of very boring regurgitation of factoids. History is probably the worst off. Instead of simply being omitted, like sociology and anthropology, or reduced to boring facts, like psychology and economics, history is often taught in outright lies. See the great book Lies My Teacher Told Me for a much better introduction than I can give. In the end, what is left of "social studies" is a very ineffectual "civic education" program that teaches students to be good little proles.

I've mentioned elsewhere how I think more time should be given to philosophy (considering that often zero time is given to philosophy...), especially logic, critical thinking, philosophy of science, ethics and moral philosophy, and political philosophy. Broad "general philosophy" courses are probably least useful, and mostly serve to give philosophy a bad name.

I haven't finished watching these videos, but Isaac Asimov (http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/01/28/isaac-asimov-creativity-education-science/) had some really interesting ideas on education, and I wish education as a whole could take some of that to heart.
Looks interesting, I'll check that out.

[WarKitty]

Though I have to say, when it comes to relevance, it can feel as a teacher like a catch-22. I do philosophy. A lot of the stuff I teach I do think has practical import, but I don't think you're going to get anything of clear practical importance out of the first lesson. So there's a certain amount of trust that has to go on, that what I'm doing actually is valuable, because I can't tell you how to apply concepts that you haven't learned and would just look at me blankly if I mentioned them now.

[Toastkart]

You, sir, are a genius.
Why thank you.


Personally I disapprove of the idea of e-readers or computers in schools. It teaches kids how to use a computer to solve problems, not how to solve the problems themselves.
On the other hand, your argument could just as easily go a step further and say, "Why back in my day, we never had pens and paper! And we did fine! They can do without too!"

You can move the argument in the other direction as well, though. Using technology to aid learning in that way can allow you to tackle more advanced problems more quickly. Now, there are a lot of good reasons not to do that, but it's possible.



Research has shown that you can't begin learning that way, students just flail around trying to figure it out. Instead, you teach the material the traditional way first (lectures, textbooks, worked problems, etc.) then move into hands on and experiments. Ultimately though I agree with you to an extent, I just think it needs to be a more mixed approach rather than a radical shift to a new paradigm. Besides, different people learn different ways, so using different approaches is nice.
There are several different ways to do PBL, and I think they all include what's referred to as scaffolding before you just turn the students loose on a problem and say 'have at it.' But I understand what you're saying. The first time I was in a class that was taught using PBL was a cognitive neuroscience class and it was split relatively evenly between lecture and problem solving for most of the semester. The problem solving half of the class was where I learned the most (and had the most fun), even though that professor was a particularly good lecturer.


I somewhat agree, but I think too much emphasis is placed on this "ever changing" body of knowledge by many people. You often hear how what you learn now will be obsolete in 10 years. Bollocks. So much of the important stuff doesn't change.

You have a point, but I would add that for some fields it is more relevant than others. Medicine and psychology are both fields like this. If you don't have access to the most up to date information, and if you don't know how to critically analyze it, you could end up doing significant harm to your clients.


An even better example might be the humanities. Although new ideas are added to philosophy, new discoveries are made in history, and new great works of art and literature are made day by day, Shakespeare doesn't change. Hume doesn't change. Van Gogh doesn't change. World War II, and all the messy politics thereof doesn't change. These are all things people should at least be exposed to, and some of it should be studied in depth.
I don't disagree with your point, but at the same time, interpretations change. Or rather, they should change.


Too many people do not have these basic reasoning skills to help them analyze the huge masses of data we receive every day. Without these skills it is too easy for people to be deceived by statistics.


The problem with the big four is that the emphasis is wrong. I've already covered math and science, so lets hit English. English focuses too much on books written by dead white males. Don't get me wrong, I love reading things written by dead white males. But I also love film, theater, graphic narrative, music, and the visual arts. Students will be far more interested and get far more out of the learning experience if they are exposed to a wide variety of culture instead of a narrow category of "classic literature" (although I think that is important too). Also, at the high school level at least cultural/literary studies needs to be disentangled from learning how to read and write.

As for social studies, that is the worst, at least in the US. It is bad for the same reason it is hard to talk about it on these boards: nothing controversial or upsetting can ever be discussed. This means ignoring very interesting results in sociology, psychology, history, etc. in favor of very boring regurgitation of factoids. History is probably the worst off. Instead of simply being omitted, like sociology and anthropology, or reduced to boring facts, like psychology and economics, history is often taught in outright lies. See the great book Lise My Teacher Told Me for a much better introduction than I can give. In the end, what is left of "social studies" is a very ineffectual "civic education" program that teaches students to be good little proles.

I couldn't agree more. Even so, though, I think my point still stands. If you cut out all the crap and changed the emphasis to something more like what you describe, would 13 years of the big 4 still be required? I'm all for options, and I think there should be some leeway to consider some of the big 4 to be optional along with everything else.


I've mentioned elsewhere how I think more time should be given to philosophy (considering that often zero time is given to philosophy...), especially logic, critical thinking, philosophy of science, ethics and moral philosophy, and political philosophy. Broad "general philosophy" courses are probably least useful, and mostly serve to give philosophy a bad name.

I agree, but I also think that some philosophy should be baked into the subject it is most related to. Now, that won't apply to all types of philosophy, but I think there's room for both.

[Carry2]

I'm just gonna have to throw in my 2 cents on this again, even though I really really need to review the thread more extensively.


* The scientific community is itself giving serious consideration to abolishing the system of private, for-profit publication journals in favour of peer-policed wiki-style publication. I doubt that educational materials will be improved by lagging behind their example.

* I agree that an industrial factory-prep system and/or prison-system analogy are apt descriptions of our early schooling institutions. I am also deliberately shying away from distinguishing too strongly between primary, secondary or tertiary education, since I believe this (largely age-based) distinction is unproductive. I think students should be able to tackle a subject when they are capable and interested. Period.

* If you can find some method of increasing *interest* in a subject, through better teaching methods, better communication of it's importance, better counselling or psychology, etc. then by all means do. But again, I think that in the absence of genuine interest in X that education in X is painfully inefficient at best and a complete waste of time at worst. And if the interest is there, you won't have to force kids. I do not believe that 'exposure' or 'learning by osmosis' is well-documented as being remotely effective as a means of long-term education.

[Drolyt]

You have a point, but I would add that for some fields it is more relevant than others. Medicine and psychology are both fields like this. If you don't have access to the most up to date information, and if you don't know how to critically analyze it, you could end up doing significant harm to your clients.
Fair enough, but I don't think that applies to most general education. As far as training for a career, there should be an emphasis on learning the foundations and then learning how to learn new things as you go along. Universities, at least in the US, are working hard to do things that way. At least in the US most educational problems are at the primary and secondary levels.

I couldn't agree more. Even so, though, I think my point still stands. If you cut out all the crap and changed the emphasis to something more like what you describe, would 13 years of the big 4 still be required? I'm all for options, and I think there should be some leeway to consider some of the big 4 to be optional along with everything else.
I think that for the primary grades the focus should be less on the big 4, or really learning any specific knowledge, and more on fundamentals like reading, writing, and arithmetic, along with broad exposure to a large variety of things, not just the big 4. The thing is, until at least middle school kids brains aren't developed enough to really use critical thinking, or to understand mathematical logic or the scientific method, so teaching them those things is pointless, and filling their heads with facts is only somewhat useful.

[IamL]

Trigonometry and Calculus are incredibly useful and important tools, and I hesitate to remove them from the high school curriculum (they should at least be electives) because they are necessary in so many fields, but the majority of people would be better served learning mathematics that actually affects us outside of our fields. Primarily this is probability, statistics, and mathematical reasoning/logic. Too many people do not have these basic reasoning skills to help them analyze the huge masses of data we receive every day. Without these skills it is too easy for people to be deceived by statistics.
Very true. I suggest the book "How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrel Huff.


1. Scientific Reasoning. Most people do not know how to interpret experimental results, or how to go about testing whether a hypothesis is correct. To this end I think a lot more class time should be devoted to experiments.

Also very true. People tend to want to listen to the five-second sound bites from somebody who supports their views instead of actually taking the work to read the lab results and procedures.


As for social studies, that is the worst, at least in the US. It is bad for the same reason it is hard to talk about it on these boards: nothing controversial or upsetting can ever be discussed. This means ignoring very interesting results in sociology, psychology, history, etc. in favor of very boring regurgitation of factoids. History is probably the worst off. Instead of simply being omitted, like sociology and anthropology, or reduced to boring facts, like psychology and economics, history is often taught in outright lies. See the great book Lise My Teacher Told Me for a much better introduction than I can give. In the end, what is left of "social studies" is a very ineffectual "civic education" program that teaches students to be good little proles.

This is very, very accurate. It really strikes into the heart of what I think is a major issue with our education system: People will sue a school if you talk about gay marriage without parental consent, they'll cut your funding if a school system discusses anything but the "proper" things.



I've mentioned elsewhere how I think more time should be given to philosophy (considering that often zero time is given to philosophy...), especially logic, critical thinking, philosophy of science, ethics and moral philosophy, and political philosophy. Broad "general philosophy" courses are probably least useful, and mostly serve to give philosophy a bad name.

...all of this is true. A near-perfect system would that bases absolutely all learning off of logic, philosophy, scientific method, and vocabulary, which would prepare students for specialization because they would be capable of learning just about anything. It would give them the tools to learn. It would teach them how to understand lab results and how to follow logical statements and how to recognize an illogical statement.

[Disproportional]

4. No argument here, the amount of incompetent teachers is too damn high, even in good school. Tenure and unions are the enemy though, so no education reform will ever touch this unless a major economic depression happens.

95% of Finland's teachers are unionized. They give a large amount of their salary to the union. If you look at regions of 'Murka and compare regions with similar economic situations but different levels of unionization, you see unions aren't actually a big part of the game. Which is super counterintuitive. But hey, Maths.

[Blue1005]

Yes, some teachers are biased, and yes, that sucks, but at some point the student has to take responsibility for his/her grade. If you answer a test question correctly, they can't mark it incorrect without you being able to bring it to their attention.

...so....true. There was a person in my fifth grade class who got a 27 on an open-notebook science test WHEN HE HAD HIS NOTEBOOK and still blamed the teacher for his bad grade. People shirk all of their responsibilities as a student and still blame the teacher for a bad grade. But teachers have to pass them, or else they'll complain that they're being biased against.



That is another problem too, why cant people realize that their kids are lazy or stupid? If you really think EVERY child can be a superstar and become president you are setting them up for failure. "No child left behind" should be "No child allowed to get ahead" there should be separate levels of children, not all are able to keep up and bring down the smarter ones.

[Carry2]

95% of Finland's teachers are unionized. They give a large amount of their salary to the union...
Yeah... but Finland's teacher need to have a Master's Degree and come from the top 10% of graduates in order to be hired at all. If you have those kinds of standards, by all means keep your union.

[Chen]

Yes, some teachers are biased, and yes, that sucks, but at some point the student has to take responsibility for his/her grade. If you answer a test question correctly, they can't mark it incorrect without you being able to bring it to their attention.

This is easy in classes where there are fixed answers. Get into a class where its more subjective and bias can be clearly present. There was an english teacher in our CEGEP (college in Quebec) who would give you TERRIBLE marks if you disagreed with her, even if your points were well thought out, backed up etc. Fortunately for me I heard about this AND your grade was based on your best essay (out of 4-5) in her class (plus bonus marks for quizzes). So despite her crazy beliefs I wrote the first essay a week into class, agreed with her on all points and got a 95 on it. Never went back to that class :P

[IamL]

This is easy in classes where there are fixed answers. Get into a class where its more subjective and bias can be clearly present. There was an english teacher in our CEGEP (college in Quebec) who would give you TERRIBLE marks if you disagreed with her, even if your points were well thought out, backed up etc. Fortunately for me I heard about this AND your grade was based on your best essay (out of 4-5) in her class (plus bonus marks for quizzes). So despite her crazy beliefs I wrote the first essay a week into class, agreed with her on all points and got a 95 on it. Never went back to that class :P

...given that it's pretty easy to be biased in a subjective art, like LA. But still, if it's mathematics or something, where it's totally objective, there is absolutely no way they can be biased without you being able to call them on it.

[noparlpf]

...given that it's pretty easy to be biased in a subjective art, like LA. But still, if it's mathematics or something, where it's totally objective, there is absolutely no way they can be biased without you being able to call them on it.

Eh, sometimes they can take off points if you don't use the method they taught in class even if yours works fine (or better) and you still got the right answers.

[Chen]

Eh, sometimes they can take off points if you don't use the method they taught in class even if yours works fine (or better) and you still got the right answers.

Alternatively part marks when you've done work, but get it wrong in the end, can be pretty subjective even in things like math and physics.

[IamL]

Alternatively part marks when you've done work, but get it wrong in the end, can be pretty subjective even in things like math and physics.

Eh, kind of.
All correct paths lead to the correct answer, at least in math and any science not related to quantum mechanics. If you followed a correct algorithm but messed up in a calculation, then I understand part marks. But if you didn't follow the correct steps, I wouldn't give any partial marks. That's pretty objective, in my opinion.

[Chen]

Eh, kind of.
All correct paths lead to the correct answer, at least in math and any science not related to quantum mechanics. If you followed a correct algorithm but messed up in a calculation, then I understand part marks. But if you didn't follow the correct steps, I wouldn't give any partial marks. That's pretty objective, in my opinion.

My point was part marks can be given depending on how far you got through your thought process in solving the problem. Rarely are problems just "use this one algorithm and solve". Often they are complex combinations of things. Knowing to use Newton's method to get to a certain point but then not knowing what else to do may be worth X marks whereas using a different method that gets closer to the solution and then getting stuck might be worth Y. There is no real objective way to say which is "better" and in what proportion, which is where the subjective nature of part marks can come in.

[Drolyt]

My point was part marks can be given depending on how far you got through your thought process in solving the problem. Rarely are problems just "use this one algorithm and solve". Often they are complex combinations of things. Knowing to use Newton's method to get to a certain point but then not knowing what else to do may be worth X marks whereas using a different method that gets closer to the solution and then getting stuck might be worth Y. There is no real objective way to say which is "better" and in what proportion, which is where the subjective nature of part marks can come in.
Some teachers do have rubrics that at least try to explain what the objective criteria are so it is the same for everyone. I think some schools require this.

[IamL]

My point was part marks can be given depending on how far you got through your thought process in solving the problem. Rarely are problems just "use this one algorithm and solve". Often they are complex combinations of things. Knowing to use Newton's method to get to a certain point but then not knowing what else to do may be worth X marks whereas using a different method that gets closer to the solution and then getting stuck might be worth Y. There is no real objective way to say which is "better" and in what proportion, which is where the subjective nature of part marks can come in.
...true. But still, you should be able to point out that your algorithm or algorithms was/were correct. It's still objective.

[WarKitty]

Eh, kind of.
All correct paths lead to the correct answer, at least in math and any science not related to quantum mechanics. If you followed a correct algorithm but messed up in a calculation, then I understand part marks. But if you didn't follow the correct steps, I wouldn't give any partial marks. That's pretty objective, in my opinion.

This also assumes you don't get the prof like one I had in undergrad that made you play "guess what the important algorithms will be." But that's more a teaching style failure.

[Neftren]

My point was part marks can be given depending on how far you got through your thought process in solving the problem. Rarely are problems just "use this one algorithm and solve". Often they are complex combinations of things. Knowing to use Newton's method to get to a certain point but then not knowing what else to do may be worth X marks whereas using a different method that gets closer to the solution and then getting stuck might be worth Y. There is no real objective way to say which is "better" and in what proportion, which is where the subjective nature of part marks can come in.

I would disagree with this. There are quite often specific ways that are better. Since you brought up Newton's Method, let's take something within the realm of Calculus. I think we can all agree here that differentiation via Leibniz notation is vastly easier than starting from the definition of a derivative and taking limits. That is a loaded example though, as one clearly a reduction of the other. How about Multiple Integration? Finding the area of an irregularly shaped region is much more elegantly computed with a double integral, as opposed to taking the integral of the total region, then subtracting the integral of the smaller region.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The biggest problem is one inherent to just about every major institution: It takes a while to change.

Once upon a time, those systems functioned well enough.
Now, their flaws are more major, their virtues don't matter, and other changes make the system obsolete.
The people in charge of the system like the old system and don't want to change.

The problem in changing the system is less way and more will.

Just my thoughts.

[Animastryfe]

I am only addressing undergraduate university level education, and I only have experience with an elite liberal arts college and an Ivy League university. I do not mean to brag, but I believe that stating my educational background is important for showing my biases.





I'm beginning to wonder if our educational systems (worldwide) couldn't stand some improvement in terms of efficiency. Since this kind of came up tangentially in another thread recently, I thought I'd give a brief run-down on the points that come to mind for me.


* Evidence for the effectiveness of homework in many subjects appears to be lacking. Finnland and Korea seem to have similar levels of educational achievement, and the Finns do a lot less homework.


Homework is absolutely necessary for science, engineering and mathematics subjects. I am not including humanities subjects because I have very limited experience with them. Since the point of technical classes, perhaps not including the introductory courses, is to both teach the student the subject and teach the student how to do science/engineering/mathematics, the importance of having students do problems should be evident.



* WTF is up with 40-minute class periods? For me, it was usually just long enough to get really stuck into a subject and then have your concentration broken.


The shortest class period that I have at the Ivy League university is one hour and fifteen minutes, and that is for a language class that meets four times per week. Most classes take one hour and twenty five minutes. At the liberal arts college, some classes meet for fifty minutes, three times per week.

In high school, some of my classes did meet for about forty or forty five minutes. However, I don't think that's a bad thing for a high school student, as their attention spans are likely not as long as college students'.



* I remember, in College, that a lot of the lecturers would refuse to release their full lecture notes online because the students wouldn't show up in class otherwise. My basic attitude was "If you're not adding any value that isn't present in the online notes, something I can probably get from wikipedia for free, or a book for a fraction of the cost, how do you justify your ****ing salary?"

* This isn't to say that genuinely high-quality lecturers don't exist, particularly in the area of hands-on tutorials, labs and demonstrations. Indeed, high-quality teachers in smaller classrooms appear to be one of the more important factors in determining educational outcomes. (Personally, without naming examples, I'd be perfectly willing to give teachers a more competitive wage scale if I was also able to fire the incompetents.)

Your first point does not actually logically follow, although it does seem to be something that is likely to be inferred from the professor's comments by many students. The professor's statement is that students may think that the lecture notes encompass all of the value of going to class, even though that is not actually the case.

Your second point seems to mix high school teachers and university professors together. Keep in mind that the main job of professors at research universities is to perform research. Unfortunately, I have heard that many or some universities do not really care about the professor's teaching skills, and thus professors have disincentives for spending time on improving their teaching skills. If, OP, you think that the primary job of professors is to teach, then I suggest you do some reading on universities. Note that this is talking about a positive statement, and not a normative one; I am not asking whether you think the primary job of professors should be to teach.



* There are certain subjects that you *have* to acquire basic proficiency in, because you need them to acquire further knowledge and function independently (math, literacy, rudimentary social etiquette, housekeeping/DIY, etc.) But having a wide range of compulsory subjects seems largely pointless. Aside from the rote regurgitation of facts, kids rarely retain knowledge of or interest in subjects that they didn't have some degree of interest in before.


As you mentioned in your first sentence, those subjects may be necessary. However, this is likely to vary based on the university. The liberal arts college that I have mentioned before did not have any classes that were compulsory for every student, although international students had to take a specific english class unless they have evidence of english proficiency. I do no think I can talk about this point further unless you specify a specific university's program.




* Adults seem to be under the impression that kids automatically learn stuff faster, but kids have far less discipline. And the reality of modern economies is that, in many jobs, you're going to have to retrain yourself every few years regardless. This idea of stuffing students' heads with a certain collection of knowledge, and they'll be set for life, is hopelessly outdated. (I reckon that direct training of techniques for self-directed learning- e.g, memory tricks, time planning, philosophy of science- might be useful in itself.)

Citation required for the first and third sentences. Almost none of the classes that I have taken emphasized rote memorization over reasoning skills. The possible exceptions are some science/engineering classes, but the information that we needed to memorize were fundamental Newton's Laws / Gauss's Law / thermodynamic potentials kinds of knowledge. Even then, the exams and problem sets of course asked us to use that knowledge, and not to blindly regurgitate facts. All, or nearly all, of the humanities and softer social science classes used essays as the primary grading tool.




* The emphasis of educational curricula is wrong for many students. A lot of people learn facts far more easily when they see some direct connection to practical applications of that knowledge. I think apprenticeship schemes with many industries or professions, and/or private-sector collaborations, need to start earlier and be better supported.


Education is not only for finding jobs, and not all classes are directly associated with some job or job skill. However, most majors are useful career-wise. The old joke that the only jobs that philosophy majors can find is in fast food is only true if you think that the career that people can choose is one that is directly related to their major.

To directly address your last sentence, I am inundated with emails about career fairs and internship opportunities at the Ivy League university. Research opportunities were easily found at the liberal arts college, although it seems to be more difficult to do undergraduate research at the much larger Ivy League university.



* What is up with all the textbooks? If you live in the western world, at least, odds are 9-to-1 you have access to a flatscreen device or laptop of some kind. And if you don't, schools could always give you a Kindle.

The textbook industry is an oligopoly that publishes new versions of textbooks with minimal changes in order to quash the second hand textbook market. Fortunately, students seem to be pretty good at finding good deals, and some professors do not require the most recent version of textbooks for their classes.



* If you spent less money trying to teach kids things that are likely to be irrelevant to their lives, and which they almost certainly won't retain, you should, in principle, have more money to spend on teaching subjects which do interest them. Hell, you could expand the range significantly- programming, economics, law, martial arts, exploration, etc. etc. etc.

* Remarkably few people seem to have consistently enjoyed school. I'm mystified that there isn't more pressure to actually overhaul the damn thing.
These last two points seem to be summaries or elaborations of the other points.