Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

Our education systems are trying to help us prepare for our future as best as we can, and has changed and (relatively) recently allowed for the major growth of choice in the direction we want this education to take us. However, it seems that despite our ability to make these decisions, we are constantly manipulated by an outdated world-wide education system for the worse, in many different ways. What do you believe should be changed about the education systems around the world? Obviously not every single school in every country works based on the same system, maybe there are schools or instances of an experimental education system that diverts from the norm that would be worth mentioning and discussing here.

To give a clearer idea of what this topic is addressing, here are a couple of videos that would deal with numerous different problems of our education systems.
(Both are by the same person! I really like that guy.)

Education needs to be more relevant and engaging. Why do you think high school is boring? We're taught many subjects that people don't give a shit about. Not that they're useless- they certainly are interesting lessons since they are informative, but I think the problem is that if it's not engaging, you don't motivate the student to develop problem-solving skills. They just pass the class and say "**** it, glad that's over with." I was the top graduating student of my senior class, and yet I already forgot all that stuff from the books. I only did that because I was told to do so by the system.

Of course, I do believe every person should have access to some fundamental knowledge of every school subject, but after that...I dunno, do SOMETHING THAT'S INTERESTING. We're in an internet age, yet schools choose to censor and block access instead of taking advantage of it to make a better learning experience.

I don't know what the solution is, but, at least from my school experience as a kid, something needs to change. I remember being the only one in class who challenged the teachers to do something different in our lessons, but we always did everything by the book. Hated that nonsense.

My problem with the American education system is the lack of specialization towards a career unless if you're in an area lucky enough to have special charter schools with programs specially designed for that sort of thing.

Personally, my biggest problem with the education system is how the government and society treats the teachers in the US. They're pretty much treated like shit, and it's nothing more than a glorified babysitting job. If you want any prestigious teaching career, you pretty much have to start at the university level, which is difficult for many people to do.

Also, I feel that the education system as a whole would benefit from more sociology classes. Bash out any ignorant ideas about society before those fuckers can fully enter it.

Kaxbe, on 24 January 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

The big problem with sociology is that it is 90% bullshit.

Anyway, what would I change?

I had a really, really good and engaging education. So I'd just say make more schools like my schools were. Teachers who care, teachers who are engaged, teachers who are involved. Computers in the classroom (I had those in 1992. 1992! A big set of Apple computers, donated by someone nice) Teach students about why education is good early on - don't try and tempt them with money, but with power. Tell them they'll be smarter, they'll have more fun. Show them how fun it is to know things, and teach them to prize knowledge and learning for its own sake.

Start with science very early - I'm talking preschool here. Continue the education throughout their careers, and make sure all students have teachers who are competent to teach it.

Incorporate computers in the classroom. Not iPads - those are crap. Actual, real computers, with keyboards and mice. Teach them how to use them, teach them how to use them to better themselves, as well as for fun. Teach them to type. Do this very early on, so that computers are a part of them.

Push them to go as far as they can go, and try to get everyone to go to college. It won't work, obviously, but that's okay - we need someone to make fries for us, after all.

The schools around my home are generally good, but they don't do much to let or help students excel. When I attended a public school in 1st grade, the library books all had colored dots on the spine to show what grade's reading level they were. I had a higher reading level than most of the kids in my class and I got bored with the first grade books quickly, and tried to check out one of the second grade books. I was then told that a 1st grader can't check out a second grade book.

I attended a private school from 2nd grade until high school, but in high school there are similar problems. We have several classes, programs, and teachers that are engaging and encourage the students to think for themselves and make connections between subjects, rather than viewing them as the separate little packets of information. But these are the teachers that the administration are always looking for excuses to fire and the classes that they want to cut or take funding from. And at the same time the students of these classes are the ones relied on the make the school's average test scores higher than the other two public high schools in Slidell (just north of New Orleans). Our principal actually came in a told my advanced English class that my freshman year. It's always "You can do good but don't you dare be better than slightly above average unless it makes the administration look good."

What's more, my school places much more emphasis on our sports programs and the 4 religious clubs than anything else. The guitar classes were cut as options completely, the JROTC is wanting for much needed money for equipment, Robotics club is less of a school club and more of a small business, the art and science teachers are always saying how they need more money for supplies for projects and lab experiments, and the performance clubs and classes are severely underfunded, under advertised and just generally treated like they aren't important, even though our school has many many talented performers. It's very hard to be generally well respected in my school unless you're one of the sports stars. Now, if you're in a science or art club you won't be bullied, but you will be ignored for the most part. And this is the best school in my town.

So there's all that. Another thing I always had issue with was the rigid schedule schools force students to stick too. Left to my own devices I'll wake up around noon and go to sleep around 2 am. But my school starts at 7 am and ends at 2 pm. I am forced to ignore the schedule I will naturally work best with and stick to something more "normal." I always thought that high schools should offer day and night classes for all students so everyone could perform their best when they are the most awake.

This post has been edited by nate: 29 January 2012 - 12:07 AM

Finnish education is good as-is. My psychology teacher keeps insisting it was designed with girls in mind but I have no issues with it~

(Nah, I actually see the issue but basically it only affects Lukio and most of the people should be smart enough to pass with decent grades anyway)

nate, on 28 January 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

High school should start later (say, 9amish) due to teenagers' schedules being a bit later than adults', but the problem is that you have to be taught by adults. That being said, it could be interesting to run schools for long hours to save on budget (say, having one set of students from 7-3, another set from 3-11, while still having only one facility) but it would require a lot of swing shift teachers.

I know at my school, all the advanced classes I'm in the students and teachers alike want the day to start later (around 3) and the regular teachers are fine as is and the regular students just want class to start one hour later or something. It never made much sense to me why the students relied on the make the school look good were forced into a schedule that made them sleepy and dull rather than being allowed to work at a time that would be best for them.

We need to be in school longer. This year my all the schools in my county started more than an hour later, got out five minutes earlier, and cut one class from each year. Several people I know got screwed over in ROTC because they didn't have enough blocks to take it. A kid I know couldn't take Chinese because of it. Our classes are shorter, as well. Eighty minutes instead of 100. And we barely had enough time in classes last year as it was, and then they go and shorten it?!?!?!?!

Seniors tend to goof off more than any other grade level. They tend to have light classes and as few as possible through their Senior year. But my Chinese teacher said that every one in China, during their Senior year, went to school from something like 7A.M. until 9P.M. and still had homework when they got home.

The kids complain about how bad school is, but a lot of it is their fault...

Titanium Dragon, on 28 January 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

Teenagers' schedules are "later that adults'" because some people just don't know when they're tired enough to go to bed. High school is just fine starting around 7 ish.

Enigggma, on 29 January 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

Our school days have gotten longer, as have our school years. The thing is, a lot of the advanced class kids have done worse since that happened. We don't function like that, especially not at those times. Sure some students do well being locked in a room for 14 hours doing work. Me and my classmates do not. The rigid class room structures and schedules serve to do little but make us sleepy and irritable because we have to ignore our natural schedule and aren't allowed to fidgit and pace and do what we must to think on our own. By senior year, we're all sick of it and we're just "okay fuck this it's pointless I'm not learning anyway" and slack off.

You can say it's our fault, but if we were allowed to think and work and learn in a way that suited us we'd be more productive. But the school day and class and school rules are things out of our control and we can either stick to them and be less effecient or learn our own way and end up with a stack of detentions a mile high, eventually getting kicked out for "behavioral issues."

Eh, don't get me wrong: I'm not always in the mood to be in a classroom myself. But, that's mostly how the real world works, if you want to talk about getting prepared for it...

As for what is mostly "the student's fault," I mean things like them not giving a **** and then going "I don't get it." Many kids want shorter classes yet complain the teacher doesn't have enough time to teach the subject. But, I do see your point, and I mostly take back that statement: I typed while I was somewhat mad.

As for being sick of the classroom structure, how else can kids be taught what they need to be taught? If you don't get it all the first time, what's stopping you from learning it a bit better on your own time? Like I do with math: I sit in the classroom and somewhat understand it, then I go home and perfect it.

Well, let's take my calculus class for example. Up until that point, math had been sitting in a room and learning and doing homework. But my calculus teacher does things differently. First of all, he sits us in groups, not rows. Second of all, we don't just sit and get talked at all that often. We're made to get involved in the class and he'll have us explain the lesson to him so we get it. He's not teaching us math and calculus, he's teaching us to think and figure out on our own, which is much more important and generally not done at my school.

Then there's my english class, where we aren't just force fed interpretations, we are made to sit and discuss them. We're also left to roam about the room and fiddle with things and eat and chew gum, which are all technically against the school rules, and as a result some very interesting ideas about things come out about the same pieces of literature we read in freshman year that we never would have thought off.

The rigid structure does not work for everyone. And in my schools case, when they're literally begging us to make the school look good, I believe they should allow us to work and learn in the ways that suit us.

nate has a point, at least as far as school starting times are concerned. Research has shown that teenagers' biological clocks advance by a couple of hours compared to children or adults. Thus to get the proper rest and prevent sleepiness in class, high school classes should actually start later in the day. My high school started classes at 8:30 am; this I think would be an ideal time for school to start.

Enigggma, on 29 January 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

Actually, its due to circadian rhythms - teenagers actually do have a shifted rhythm relative to adults, making them wake up and sleep later. It is in fact a biological thing, just as small children and old people have "weird" schedules.

wacko, on 29 January 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

They can start later. Just don't cut into class time to do it. I would have been fine with my school starting later--If they hadn't cut one class a year to do it.

nate, on 29 January 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

The only problem is, almost every time a teacher does one of the "teach the lesson, kiddies!" gigs, we learn almost nothing. Because the students just pair up with their best friends and talk instead of actually learning their bit to teach us.
But, then again, if they got themselves up to calculus in high school, I'd imagine they're a bit more sober that kids in lower level classes.

I've been blessed with good English teachers for several years, but even the bad ones didn't "force feed" us interpretations. But they DO have a habit of asking some of the DUMBEST questions about texts and stuff, but they make you answer in an intellectual way. I hated it, but it was one of the times we were made to think the most.


So, would you be happy with school days as long as they are, or perhaps even a bit longer, if the teaching styles weren't so cut-and-dry?

This post has been edited by Enigggma: 29 January 2012 - 01:59 PM

When I say he makes us teach the lesson, what he makes us do is when we ask "what do I do to solve this" he asks "Well, how would you start it? Okay, well you know the concept, so what would be the next step? What do you add on to that? Do you know why?" and he'll make us figure it out ourselves and just fill out gaps if need be. And when I said "force fed" I meant more like being guided to what the teacher thought was the correct interpretation without much room to form our own thoughts. That's how the regular English teachers at my school teach it. I should phrase things a bit better.

But yeah, I wouldn't mind my school day being longer if I didn't have to get up so damn early just to sit still and try not to fall asleep. I have several classes that would be interesting and great if I could just DO SOMETHING instead of being talked at. My chemistry class, for example, could have been freaking amazing and in some cases it was, but for the most part, thanks to school rules, limited classroom space and lack of funding to anything but our football team, it was boring and I had to struggle to keep awake. While I picked up the concepts quickly not being allowed to apply them and instead being given worksheets was incredibly boring and felt pointless. I ended up not doing the work because it was too uninteresting for me to focus on and I failed the class and had to take it over in summer school. (Which, being an online and accelerated course, I was much more engaged and interested in).

If my teachers were letting me play games relating to the history we're learning, like my american history teacher did and got in trouble for, or giving me riddles and projects and lab experiments rather than just saying "Here's the information, memorize it for a test" I would have no problem being at school much longer because it would be much more interesting and I would actually be learning rather than just memorizing.

This post has been edited by nate: 29 January 2012 - 02:50 PM

nate, on 29 January 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

God bless your math teacher!

nate, on 29 January 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

If your history teacher doesn't let your class play Grand Strategy, then you're history teacher doesn't love you...
*ahem* Sorry, bit of nostalgia... But, yeah, history teachers tend to be good about that. Still, it's ridiculous that your history teacher got in trouble for it: it's only a means to help you memorize.

On another point: do you think the schools are underfunded or just that the funding gets mismanaged?

In my schools case, it's both. We don't get much money (though slightly more than the other public schools since we have higher average test scores) and in recent years donations have thinned out. What we do get goes mostly too the sports teams equipment and transportation and to the religious (christian) clubs. The classes that need materials, like art, band, science and the upper math classes, are made to either go without and have a subpar class or make students pay for their own shit which many of us cannot afford.

Then there are the dumb rules about how they can't play games or watch movies for more than 30 minutes in a week in classes (this rule is also applied to History in Film and Literature in Film, two classes that consist entirely of watching movies, although the teachers watch movies all class all week anyway, they could potentially be in a lot of trouble). So in a lot of cases, teachers can get some cool stuff, like a class set of math puzzle books or a relevant board game, or a movie version of a book we're reading in English that will help everyone understand better or see different points, but they can hardly use them to the point that the great learning materials are pointless to have.

nate, on 29 January 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Wait, I thought the Christian clubs were supposed to provide their own funds and were only using the school grounds as a meeting place...?

Yeah, the 30 movie rule is almost as stupid as the whole "grade level" stickers on the books back in elementary.
As for making students pay for some stuff, I understand in something like a computer graphics class (we pay $20 a semester to help offset software costs,) and in other electives, but the core classes at least should have first pick at the funding, not the sports.

All clubs are supposed too, but our principal is a devout Baptist and he'll give our christian clubs whatever they want.

I can get the supply fees, but the thing is our supply fees rarely cover the supplies and we have to buy tons of supplies on our own, out right, that should at least be paid for in part by the school. It's pretty ridiculous.

Oh, you mean like those lists they give you over the summer, telling you to bring a box of pencils for each teacher, two boxes of tissues for each class, twenty-five erasers, nine thousand pairs of scissors, and a roll of tape?

That stuff and more. Like graphing calculators. Those things are expensive but until recently if you needed one for a class you had to get it yourself, even though THE'RE REALLY REALLY EXPENSIVE and for a lot of kids they wouldn't ever need it after that class. Now we have class sets of them, but there's still barely enough to go around.

Weird... Graphing calculators are banned from my math classes...

Can't you get a graphing calculator for $30 or so?

Enigggma, on 29 January 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

wat

TI-84+ is priced at $139 and it's one of the more basic ones

Enigggma, on 29 January 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

In algebra and such they were banned, but in Calculus, and especially if you opted into taking Calculus BC along with AB, there are problems you need to graph and see the shape of to get and graphing them on paper is time consuming and it's easy to make mistakes and screw up your graph.

I thought that about the price too until I went to get one from WalMart. The cheapest one, and the one that was recommended by our teacher, was $200

This post has been edited by nate: 29 January 2012 - 05:31 PM

In my school, graphing calculators are available for those who need them, and theoretically we have enough for each person at any one point (meaning that you only use it during the class, and need to give them back for the next class). However, in the program that I'm in, they require that you have a graphing calculator for the occasional graphing calculator portions of the test. This part would not be possible to finish if you tried to do it by hand, and thus requires that you know how to use technology properly, and in the end the test basically checks if you know how the algebra and the theory behind the math works, and then it checks if you know how to use the knowledge in real life (because really, who is going to do all those calculations for work or personal life algebraically when there is a graphing calculator handy?). I find that that is a good step towards more useful learning, and at least bringing the attention of the students to the fact that at least some of the stuff that they learn in schools will in fact be useful later on.

This adresses part of the technological development issue of education students, and I'm glad that people didn't start going on about having specialized classes for different ages and different levels of education and so forth, as would be the ideal solution to one of the main problems brought up in the first video (too large a class per teacher ration would occur). What about the problems that we are now noticing in universities? Professors are simply reading out of the textbook for their lectures, and many people are barely every coming to them anymore because they can get most of the lecture word for word in their books. The problem is that many universities feel pressured (and probably are by the government) to increase the size of every class so that more people can be accepted into universities to satisfy the increasing demand for entrance acceptance (more people graduating high school and looking for extended education than ever before). This results in one professor trying to teach 600 students at one time, and he really can't do too much but recite what's in the text. Guelph University had to rent out an entire wing from a nearby Best Western hotel just to accommodate the increasing first year students. The students are quickly losing interest, and are just there for he credentials, but learn little. Some universities like McMaster are setting up specialized programs for the people with high marks and who have shown a inclination to learning. They end up in insanely small classes with access to proper equipment, 'interactive classrooms,' dedicated study areas and so forth, but more importantly a direct connection to the professor. Do you think this is a good solution? What would you change about it? What other solutions should be attempted? Many universities are experimenting with different ways to try to accommodate the masses, but it looks like the large lectures are staying for the near future.

I like the solution of having students with higher marks being given a better learning environment. However, I think it shouldn't just be limited to students with high grades because there are many students at my school that are brilliant and they do well in the classes that let them do things, but put into a similar subject in a class that makes them sit still and take notes they get bored and don't see a point. I'm one of those. It should be based on results of some sort of survey, I guess.

I know a lot of teachers, seeing as my mom is a teacher and I've been in school for 13 years now, and many of them argue that all students should be given equal learning environments so that some students don't feel dumber than others. The thing is, equal learning environments is what makes other kids feel dumber, I think. Growing up, because I didn't do as well grades wise as most other kids because I was bored, I was generally viewed as one of the "dumb kids" even though I could remember the material and did better on tests than most of them. If students are given different learning environments based on how they learn and how well they learn, everyone does better and they only have a chance to compare themselves to classmates on the same general level as them rather than the one genius kid in the class full of average students. No one has to feel inferior, or at least terribly inferior, in the classroom and everyone in general does better because they're no frustrated with not being as "smart" as someone else.

This post has been edited by nate: 29 January 2012 - 06:16 PM

nate, on 29 January 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Eh, I guess it's different from district to district. My current math teacher is saying they're not letting us use graphing calculators because we can't use them on tests in calculus.

nate, on 29 January 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

The problem with giving better learning environments to the better kids is the ones in the worse environments are now being told they are stupid, and whatever apathy they had to get them there gets multiplied and their grades become even worse.

Enigggma, on 29 January 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

I don't think you can use them on the Calculus AP tests (there's a calculator section but I'm not sure of what type of calculators they use) but a lot of our book problems, especially in BC, are more focused on "Hey look this math is used for something really cool, let's learn what that is and how!" rather than just on passing a test and doing the work without realizing why so we'll always have at least one question in a section that will require the use of a graphing calculator. Our teacher wants us to do these even if we won't encounter them on the test because they require a lot of the critical thinking he believes is the real point of taking a math class, because really, out of all the kids in that class maybe 4 of them are going to go into a field where they'll use literal calculus all the time. Plus using the calculator requires us to put things in the right order with parentheses in all the right places and what not, or get an error or an answer way off. This way we're more careful and don't make dumb little notation mistakes that screw up the whole problem

nate, on 29 January 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

I believe that that is essentially what they are doing. It's not only based on high marks, you need to show them your enthusiasm in one way or another. I believe that McMasters has a contest of some sort, along with all of it's other math contest that you could use for your application to the university. Interestingly enough, the program that I'm in is basically the same thing as the specialized classes at McMasters. There are about 100 of us (over 1000 applied) and we get smaller classes, better equipment, first shots at the new textbooks and all that jazz. The problems come in when the rest of the school starts to see you as elitist. They tried to kick us out because of our smaller classes, and the fact that the rest of the school was getting crammed with more people. We do get special treatment and such, and this causes uneasiness throughout the rest of the school. I'm worried that the same thing could happen with McMasters, as this involves even more people and more serious studies. Going back to applications though, for IB (the program that I'm in) you need to have had high marks, be well rounded, and have good recommendations. My marks were shit (mid 70's), but I swim 7 times a week, do other activities, and instead of getting my teacher to give the recommendation, I asked a university professor (who offered after school classes on 'english enrichment' which could range from poetry to the humanities that I attended) to sign off and send the recommendation letter. In the end, what I'm saying is that universities are really looking for more than just marks, and with the overpopulation problem they are having, it is becoming more important to stand out in order to get in the programs that teach you something.

This post has been edited by The Swimmer: 29 January 2012 - 06:32 PM

Quote

Not necessarily. My school is divided into Special Ed, regular, Honors, and Gifted. Honors are the hard worker kids who just need to get through things faster, Gifted we test into with and IQ test (Which we or our parents are never told the results of other than "you're in the gifted class" or "You're not in gifted" and the range is fairly wide to get in). The Gifted and Honors classes tend to be smaller and more fun and just better. The regular students are well aware of this but many of them I know don't feel dumb because of it. They think our projects and labs sound like more work and their general feeling on it is "Let them have it! I don't want to be in a class with them, I look dumb by comparison!"

Now, they still see us as elitists and don't generally like us, and the administration thinks the solution would be to equalize the classes, but the teachers and students generally feel that they want to keep things separated. At this point, the classes generally don't interact with each other. Everyone has their groups, based on intelligence, shared classes, interests, clubs, sexual orientation, etc. and no one really mixes any groups their in and for the most part my school is free of bullying issues. The teachers that will talk about it (many are afraid they'll get in trouble) think that forcing these groups to be together all the time will just make chaos break out

This post has been edited by nate: 29 January 2012 - 06:46 PM

Enigggma said:

That's fine, you just shift/extend the school day as long as is necessary. At my high school, classes started at 8:30 am and ended at 3:15 pm.

The other part of it is that kids probably need to be in school for more days per year. I see in the United States that kids start school in something like mid-August and finish in mid-May? Which, to me, makes zero sense. You don't need three months of summer vacation. I feel kids should attend school at least 190 days a year. Here in Canada, school is generally from the end of August to the end of June.

I am also going to agree with nate in that sports and clubs and other similar extracurricular activities should not take up a substantial portion of the educational budget. That budget is for (guess what?) education. This means that all core classes ought to be properly funded and supplied before you even start considering extracurricular stuff.

As for calculators: I went through the entirety of high school and university without using a graphing calculator. Did all my graphs by hand. I did have a scientific calculator which I used heavily.

wacko, on 29 January 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

I agree with the school year being longer myself, if for no other reason than summer vacation leaves me bored for months at a time. At least in my area, we're getting longer school years but it's happening very very very gradually.

nate, on 29 January 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Really? Most of my best friends are from lower classes than me...

I mean we should not stick the lower level kids in the worst classrooms and update their books less frequently. That's part of what makes them not care. I know some VERY intelligent people, but they feel like the school is trying to put them down, so they don't do as well.

Enigggma, on 29 January 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

I have friends in lower classes as well, but that's because we're in the same clubs or have the same lunch. I don't think the regular classes should be worse, exactly. When I say that I like the idea of the honors and gifted students having "better" learning environments, I mean what I and my classmates feel is better. For instance there are two different physics books used in my school, one for regular and one for the upper classes. They're both up to date, but the upper classes one goes into a lot more depth and explains more complex things that the other book just glosses over quickly.

wacko, on 29 January 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

We're in school for 180 days over here.
The problem with the sports teams is that EVERYONE loves them. Take Mr. Holland's Opus, for example: Mr. Holland got let go by the school because they were trying to "reduce the budget," and he says something to the effect of "You've always been trying to get rid of me, Dean, and now you've found your excuse. I mean, take away the football budget and that would end Western civilization as we know it."

It's fine to have sports teams, you just can't spend an excessive amount of money on them. Not everyone is into sports, and there are many other extracurricular activities equally worthy of funding (music, drama, arts, etc.)

Still, I feel that core classes and the teachers themselves should be properly funded and supported before you start spreading money around, especially in tight economic times. I mean, it's not the worst thing ever if your high school doesn't have the money to field a football team, so long as the students are receiving a good education.

wacko, on 29 January 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Exactly. What I think is really sad about my school is that despite all the money pumped into it, our football teams is still terrible! While our incredibly talented and intelligent students in choir, theater, and robotics, who all actually win awards and such, get very little from the school if anything at all. The only one of those not terribly underfunded is robotics, and that's because the robotics club has sponsors from companies and businesses all over the town, and we earn that by preparing presentations about why its beneficial to fund the team and we give back to them by providing them with skilled interns as the members graduate high school.

Haha, we had a discussion about this over dinner tonight.

They need to put people who actually know what they are doing in charge of writing the curriculum. When they had a big meeting to discuss how math should be taught across the country, there wasn't a SINGLE math teacher or mathematician in the group. Oh, but they had "experts." Hahahahahahahahahahahkahahabulcrap. The military, for a while, was complaining because they were spending MILLIONS on educating their OFFICERS because they had no basic math skills. Recently my mom was told about this great new method they were using to teach kids to subtract. It had something to do with rounding and then doing something weird... Anyway, my mom is a math professor at a university, and even SHE couldn't understand it. HOW can you teach kids things the teachers can't even understand?
Eh, I'mma stop ranting for now... Don't want to get *too* carried away...

This post has been edited by Enigggma: 30 January 2012 - 12:45 AM

I have mixed feelings over education. I'm not very good at most subjects. I'm going to have to think about all I know about education & stuff along the lines that Sir Ken Robinson mentioned in the videos above.

+ The medication of children is bull-sh_t

Medication of children isn't always bullshit. Today its become a problem because a lot of doctors and parents, rather than properly evaluating a child, just slap on a diagnosis and medicate them. But some students genuinely need medication to function in classroom and social situations. I should know, I'm one of them.

So basically, a new patch came out for Life, the metagame changed, and none of the strategy guides have updated.

A few different educational systems around the world used to separate kids on their abilities. In England they used to take kids after their 5th year of school and send the top 10 - 15% to grammar schools, which had a stricter and more academic curriculum, while other kids would be taught more technical skills. In Germany school used to be (still is?) divided into three after the 6th or 7th year, the "high achievers", the "general population" and the "technical schooling", in a way. These systems have been strongly criticised, but I think that some degree of separation can be very good, and allow students to achieve closer to their potential. I think the fatal mistake that these systems had was the lack of mobility for students. They were judged at one point in their lives and then doomed to carry out that path until they graduated. If there were more options for students to move between systems, it could work very well.

Opinions?

This post has been edited by Migrant: 01 February 2012 - 09:48 AM