Stuff like that makes me really wish the whole state mandated HS Graduation Test would have stuck around. It seemed like a good idea, and then they made it optional because having the already shitty inner-city schools graduation rate go from 70% to 20% would have been too much to handle(CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!), and once it was optional no one bothered and it got scraped.
Well, I mean, then what? Inner-city kids in public schools get shit education because the schools are over-crowded, the teachers are underpaid, the equipment and texbooks are outdated, and the kids themselves aren't prepared to learn (because they're poor, aren't eating healthy diets, have crack-addict parents who steal and pawn their calculators for crack-money, etc.). This is a known thing. The solution is more money. Nobody wants to spend the money on it that is needed because...I don't know why. Putting a test in place that kids have to pass in order to graduate isn't going to make them any better educated, it's just going to prevent them getting a HS diploma, making their employment options even slimmer than they already were.
I don't mean to say that we should just hand out diplomas because poor kids need them. We had the test in place and it showed everyone just how shit-tacular the school system was. The public response? Get rid of the test. I don't know what exactly needs to happen to convince the voting public that education is important and deserves to have money thrown at it until kids get smarter, but flunking 8 out of 10 poor kids out of being able to get a job above minimum wage doesn't seem to be it.
The point would seem to be that lack of standerdized results is making it impossible to see just how bad the US education system is.
I wish high schools were more affiliated with colleges
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Stuff like that makes me really wish the whole state mandated HS Graduation Test would have stuck around. It seemed like a good idea, and then they made it optional because having the already shitty inner-city schools graduation rate go from 70% to 20% would have been too much to handle(CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!), and once it was optional no one bothered and it got scraped.
Well, I mean, then what? Inner-city kids in public schools get shit education because the schools are over-crowded, the teachers are underpaid, the equipment and texbooks are outdated, and the kids themselves aren't prepared to learn (because they're poor, aren't eating healthy diets, have crack-addict parents who steal and pawn their calculators for crack-money, etc.). This is a known thing. The solution is more money. Nobody wants to spend the money on it that is needed because...I don't know why. Putting a test in place that kids have to pass in order to graduate isn't going to make them any better educated, it's just going to prevent them getting a HS diploma, making their employment options even slimmer than they already were.
I don't mean to say that we should just hand out diplomas because poor kids need them. We had the test in place and it showed everyone just how shit-tacular the school system was. The public response? Get rid of the test. I don't know what exactly needs to happen to convince the voting public that education is important and deserves to have money thrown at it until kids get smarter, but flunking 8 out of 10 poor kids out of being able to get a job above minimum wage doesn't seem to be it.
This was the point of No Child Left Behind. It allowed them to go from shitty inner city schools to the 'burbs where all the money is.
Give the kids the education, and they should be able to pass any said test, go to college, etc. Too bad it didn't work out for shit though.
I wish high schools were more affiliated with colleges
Affiliated in what way?
@Shryke
We have standardized testing, though, in the form of SATs. And is it really a secret to anyone how bad the education system is?
speaking as someone who has done test prep instruction for the SAT.
The SAT is an awful test that doesn't even seem to give any indication about what a student knows nor their ability to apply it.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I would question why a bachelor's degree is not considered something a country should provide to every citizen that wants one, while an elementary and secondary education are. Has that unacceptably distorted the market?
The major difference between secondary education and higher education is that the former is generalized and the latter is specialized. A higher education should not be a requirement for getting any non-manual-labor job, nor should it be considered necessary to be an informed citizen in general.
If a higher education is necessary for these things, I think that's a sign that our secondary education isn't doing its job.
Like I said, he's almost got me. While I am extremely dissatisfied with education in the US, I wouldn't seriously advocate axing the Department of Education unless we had some idea of what to replace it with.
Since this is Ron Paul we're speaking of, I understand that he plans to replace the DoE with nothing. Which isn't acceptable.
Well, there's a question to be asked here - our education system is poor, but compared to what?
If you want to compare our education system to before we had a federal office of education (1860-something) then yeah we're doing a lot better.
If you want to compare our education system to other countries - like, say, Finland? What do you see? More federal control over education and more federal spending on education. Clearly these aren't the only differences, but I'm constraining the argument to the question, "should we have a federal Department of Education?"
If the DoE is a failure, it's a failure because it's not big enough.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Mostly I think were jut very unclear on what the goal of education is. higher test scores? better workers? improved citizens? Until we know the goal, we can't really say whats a success.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Like I said, he's almost got me. While I am extremely dissatisfied with education in the US, I wouldn't seriously advocate axing the Department of Education unless we had some idea of what to replace it with.
Since this is Ron Paul we're speaking of, I understand that he plans to replace the DoE with nothing. Which isn't acceptable.
Well, there's a question to be asked here - our education system is poor, but compared to what?
If you want to compare our education system to before we had a federal office of education (1860-something) then yeah we're doing a lot better.
If you want to compare our education system to other countries - like, say, Finland? What do you see? More federal control over education and more federal spending on education. Clearly these aren't the only differences, but I'm constraining the argument to the question, "should we have a federal Department of Education?"
If the DoE is a failure, it's a failure because it's not big enough.
The usual argument is that a country the size and structure of the US benefits more from state-run educationboards that target the specific needs and wants of the particular state. The federal government is too big to accurately do that.
Also American Exceptionalism and socialist nanny-states and stuff.
Mostly I think were jut very unclear on what the goal of education is. higher test scores? better workers? improved citizens? Until we know the goal, we can't really say whats a success.
We can't even figure out what the goal of our country is.
Half our political spectrum seems to think the goal of us, as a nation, is "lower taxes"
Mostly I think were jut very unclear on what the goal of education is. higher test scores? better workers? improved citizens? Until we know the goal, we can't really say whats a success.
We can't even figure out what the goal of our country is.
Half our political spectrum seems to think the goal of us, as a nation, is "lower taxes"
It's too bad the conservatives don't have a functioning arts and entertainment arm. I'd honestly love to see the movie version of the conservative dream society.
Mostly I think were jut very unclear on what the goal of education is. higher test scores? better workers? improved citizens? Until we know the goal, we can't really say whats a success.
We can't even figure out what the goal of our country is.
Half our political spectrum seems to think the goal of us, as a nation, is "lower taxes"
It's too bad the conservatives don't have a functioning arts and entertainment arm. I'd honestly love to see the movie version of the conservative dream society.
Sure they do. Watch "300". Or pretty much any Michael bay movie
If you want to compare our education system to other countries - like, say, Finland? What do you see? More federal control over education and more federal spending on education. Clearly these aren't the only differences, but I'm constraining the argument to the question, "should we have a federal Department of Education?"
If the DoE is a failure, it's a failure because it's not big enough.
At least in terms of spending though, they're pretty comparable, from the stats I've been seeing.
The issue isn't really $$$, it's how they're spent. Which we apparently suck at.
I don't think spending less is an appropriate solution, but we do need to somehow spend smarter. Maybe a one time investment to update facilities, books, etc across the board is worth considering, but throwing money at the problem isn't a real solution.
I don't think spending less is an appropriate solution, but we do need to somehow spend smarter. Maybe a one time investment to update facilities, books, etc across the board is worth considering, but throwing money at the problem isn't a real solution.
Facilities spending isn't the problem. If there is one thing school boards are good at, it's building structures. This is probably because the nation's school boards tend to gravitate between controlling blocks of construction contractors and crazy social conservatives/anti-tax jihadists.
The one thing the nation could do to improve school quality is to provide a base level of teacher pay. The nations that do education well pay their teachers a competitive wage, and the federal government could do a lot more to make sure that local politics and economics do not dictate completely dictate the salaries of educators.
I would question why a bachelor's degree is not considered something a country should provide to every citizen that wants one, while an elementary and secondary education are. Has that unacceptably distorted the market?
The major difference between secondary education and higher education is that the former is generalized and the latter is specialized. A higher education should not be a requirement for getting any non-manual-labor job, nor should it be considered necessary to be an informed citizen in general.
If a higher education is necessary for these things, I think that's a sign that our secondary education isn't doing its job.
A university degree is not "required" in that you need the skills. It's required because it's a great screening tool. And there is pretty much nothing you can do about that.
And we seem to be fast approaching the point where there's just not enough TIME in secondary education to teach all the shit we want to or should teach children.
And we seem to be fast approaching the point where there's just not enough TIME in secondary education to teach all the shit we want to or should teach children.
Want to? Sure. Because regardless of the subject or field, there's going to be somebody who argues that it should be taught in high school. If you try to please everybody, then we'll end up trying to educate an army of doctor engineer lawyer philosopher violin-playing athletic 18-year-olds. God forbid we try to reduce mandatory literature curriculum from, say, 4 years down to 3 to make room for household finance. Our teenagers might not know how to balance a budget, but by the good lord's name they WILL read The Great Gatsby!
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
And we seem to be fast approaching the point where there's just not enough TIME in secondary education to teach all the shit we want to or should teach children.
Want to? Sure. Because regardless of the subject or field, there's going to be somebody who argues that it should be taught in high school. If you try to please everybody, then we'll end up trying to educate an army of doctor engineer lawyer philosopher violin-playing athletic 18-year-olds. God forbid we try to reduce mandatory literature curriculum from, say, 4 years down to 3 to make room for household finance. Our teenagers might not know how to balance a budget, but by the good lord's name they WILL read The Great Gatsby!
Y'know, I feel crazy for saying it but I'm almost with Ron Paul on this one.
While Ron is doing his usual thing of "the bathwater is dirty, dirty bathwater is a problem, therefore chuck the water the baby the tub and the soap out the window then burn your house to the ground", it got me thinking.
I concur that education is a public good, and that yes it is in the government's interest to invest in an educated populace. However, what's been the practical effect of public education thusfar? I'm underwhelmed by what passes as a "college education" currently, what happens when the government pushes yet more demands upon how colleges educate a la the public school system? Children schooled up until 22 yet no less a child at the end of it all? No less of a mouth-breathing yokel despite their "college education"?
Without some serious educational reform, axing the whole thing completely may not be as bad as it sounds.
I remember having to tutor a girl once in arithmetic. She did not know how to multiply or divide, let alone exponents or anything more complex. She barely knew how to add and subtract, and certainly had no concept of negative numbers. This is child's level math. She was a high school graduate, and I was tutoring her so she could pass the ASVAB. Because she took the ASVAB, and she failed.
I don't know how many of you here are familiar with the ASVAB, but it's basically the entry exam conducted by the US military to determine if you are so stupid as to fire a rifle backwards.
I will reiterate, this girl was a high school graduate.
When the public school system ceases to fail so spectacularly, I may be able to garner some measure of faith that indeed our government is worthy to handle a Department of Education.
Again, I concur that education is a public good and that the government ought to be involved... but when our government is so clearly inept at all levels I'm not entirely convinced that we ought to put college into its hands.
Here's the thing.
You can make a valid claim that the state governments, overall, are doing a poor job of public education. I'd say the root cause of why the school districts that are failing are failing is due to the massive funding disparity between poor and rich districts, since most (if not all) public elementary and secondary schools are funded through property taxation.
Ron Paul's shtick is "the federal government sucks, the state governments are always better", regardless of the actual reality of how, in many cases, state and local governments are the ones failing.
I wish high schools were more affiliated with colleges
Affiliated in what way?
@Shryke
We have standardized testing, though, in the form of SATs. And is it really a secret to anyone how bad the education system is?
In Virginia you can take courses at Northern Virginia community college while in high school. The teachers are often the same at other state schools (ie Mason) and the credits transfer to pretty much any local school.
It's pretty cool. School is actually affordable and the bills payable in VA. Unless you pull a stupid and go to private school and a get a useless liberal arts degree and pay it all on loans. But in that case you have only yourself to blame.
And we seem to be fast approaching the point where there's just not enough TIME in secondary education to teach all the shit we want to or should teach children.
Want to? Sure. Because regardless of the subject or field, there's going to be somebody who argues that it should be taught in high school. If you try to please everybody, then we'll end up trying to educate an army of doctor engineer lawyer philosopher violin-playing athletic 18-year-olds. God forbid we try to reduce mandatory literature curriculum from, say, 4 years down to 3 to make room for household finance. Our teenagers might not know how to balance a budget, but by the good lord's name they WILL read The Great Gatsby!
Reading comprehension is important.
I can't tell if you're saying I misunderstood your post, or if you're saying that four years of literature classes are necessary for functional reading comprehension.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
And we seem to be fast approaching the point where there's just not enough TIME in secondary education to teach all the shit we want to or should teach children.
Want to? Sure. Because regardless of the subject or field, there's going to be somebody who argues that it should be taught in high school. If you try to please everybody, then we'll end up trying to educate an army of doctor engineer lawyer philosopher violin-playing athletic 18-year-olds. God forbid we try to reduce mandatory literature curriculum from, say, 4 years down to 3 to make room for household finance. Our teenagers might not know how to balance a budget, but by the good lord's name they WILL read The Great Gatsby!
Reading comprehension is important.
I can't tell if you're saying I misunderstood your post, or if you're saying that four years of literature classes are necessary for functional reading comprehension.
I'm saying English class is important for many things. Books, specifically, for reading comprehension.
And you can say it's "not necessary", but the evidence seems to be that it's instead "not enough".
And we seem to be fast approaching the point where there's just not enough TIME in secondary education to teach all the shit we want to or should teach children.
Want to? Sure. Because regardless of the subject or field, there's going to be somebody who argues that it should be taught in high school. If you try to please everybody, then we'll end up trying to educate an army of doctor engineer lawyer philosopher violin-playing athletic 18-year-olds. God forbid we try to reduce mandatory literature curriculum from, say, 4 years down to 3 to make room for household finance. Our teenagers might not know how to balance a budget, but by the good lord's name they WILL read The Great Gatsby!
The assumption is that parents would teach their children how to balance a budget, since they have a much better grasp on what their actual budgets are.
Not saying that basic fiscal literacy isn't an important concept that, for better or worse, might have to be taught in schools, but that we're getting dangerously close to "the knowledge you think is important sucks, and should be put on the chopping block in favor of the knowledge I think is important."
I don't know if there really is the dichotomy of Gatsby vs. Home budgets.
There isn't, but that's not the point. I could have chosen home budgets vs. calculus (cue that Oatmeal comic) or calculus vs. critical thinking or critical thinking vs. biology. Whatever the example I chose, I knew that somebody would go, "But... but... but... that's important!" and we'd risk getting bogged down in talking about the specific example.
And it's a conversation that comes up whenever anybody actually says, "Hey, maybe the priorities we've been pushing on our teenagers - which haven't changed significantly in over 50 years, for the most part - need to be re-envisioned." It's a whole herd of sacred cows.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Also, he's probably lying about boostrapping his way through college.
considering my grandparents went to syracuse university for $300 a semester with no need for college loans I'm not so sure.
honestly a lot of people are getting degrees with loans they will never pay off. I think it should be considered if getting that much debt is even worth it. there are non college career paths.
I don't know if there really is the dichotomy of Gatsby vs. Home budgets.
There isn't, but that's not the point. I could have chosen home budgets vs. calculus (cue that Oatmeal comic) or calculus vs. critical thinking or critical thinking vs. biology. Whatever the example I chose, I knew that somebody would go, "But... but... but... that's important!" and we'd risk getting bogged down in talking about the specific example.
And it's a conversation that comes up whenever anybody actually says, "Hey, maybe the priorities we've been pushing on our teenagers - which haven't changed significantly in over 50 years, for the most part - need to be re-envisioned." It's a whole herd of sacred cows.
Did you ever consider that they are all important?
And you are wrong, our priorities of what should be taught HAVE changed significantly in the past decades. They've increased substantially.
honestly a lot of people are getting degrees with loans they will never pay off. I think it should be considered if getting that much debt is even worth it. there are non college career paths.
for a lot of people there really aren't. The jobs that a high school grad or dropout can get these days aren't what I'd call a"career path". Even the army is barely recruiting any more.
Sure, a few people can start there own business like Steve jobs, but it's ridiculous to expect everyone to do that .
most of the kids in my school that didn't go to college already had trade skill employment that they were planning on making a career. work part time at a car garage, graduate high school and move on to full time.
And you are wrong, our priorities of what should be taught HAVE changed significantly in the past decades. They've increased substantially.
In other countries, sure, and in some specific school districts, or at some private, charter, or magnet schools. But that's part of the danger of making generalizations about the US, since our education system is so decentralized. It's almost tautologically true that we haven't had any national curriculum reform, because we don't set curricula on a national level.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I will reiterate, this girl was a high school graduate.
When the public school system ceases to fail so spectacularly, I may be able to garner some measure of faith that indeed our government is worthy to handle a Department of Education.
Again, I concur that education is a public good and that the government ought to be involved... but when our government is so clearly inept at all levels I'm not entirely convinced that we ought to put college into its hands.
You met a dumb girl, therefore all public education is a failure?
Where did you go to school that that is even an argument you would entertain?
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I will reiterate, this girl was a high school graduate.
When the public school system ceases to fail so spectacularly, I may be able to garner some measure of faith that indeed our government is worthy to handle a Department of Education.
Again, I concur that education is a public good and that the government ought to be involved... but when our government is so clearly inept at all levels I'm not entirely convinced that we ought to put college into its hands.
You met a dumb girl, therefore all public education is a failure?
Where did you go to school that that is even an argument you would entertain?
I will reiterate, this girl was a high school graduate.
When the public school system ceases to fail so spectacularly, I may be able to garner some measure of faith that indeed our government is worthy to handle a Department of Education.
Again, I concur that education is a public good and that the government ought to be involved... but when our government is so clearly inept at all levels I'm not entirely convinced that we ought to put college into its hands.
You met a dumb girl, therefore all public education is a failure?
Where did you go to school that that is even an argument you would entertain?
By his measure WSU should be nuked into oblivion.
By his measure this thread should get locked for failing to produce good discussion.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
most of the kids in my school that didn't go to college already had trade skill employment that they were planning on making a career. work part time at a car garage, graduate high school and move on to full time.
Given the high unemployment among people with only a high school degree, it's safe to say that that's now how it works out for most people.
I will reiterate, this girl was a high school graduate.
When the public school system ceases to fail so spectacularly, I may be able to garner some measure of faith that indeed our government is worthy to handle a Department of Education.
Again, I concur that education is a public good and that the government ought to be involved... but when our government is so clearly inept at all levels I'm not entirely convinced that we ought to put college into its hands.
You met a dumb girl, therefore all public education is a failure?
Where did you go to school that that is even an argument you would entertain?
It's hard to be objective if you tutor remedial math in college. Similarly, it's difficult for any retail employee to have faith in humanity.
And we seem to be fast approaching the point where there's just not enough TIME in secondary education to teach all the shit we want to or should teach children.
Want to? Sure. Because regardless of the subject or field, there's going to be somebody who argues that it should be taught in high school. If you try to please everybody, then we'll end up trying to educate an army of doctor engineer lawyer philosopher violin-playing athletic 18-year-olds. God forbid we try to reduce mandatory literature curriculum from, say, 4 years down to 3 to make room for household finance. Our teenagers might not know how to balance a budget, but by the good lord's name they WILL read The Great Gatsby!
The assumption is that parents would teach their children how to balance a budget, since they have a much better grasp on what their actual budgets are.
Not saying that basic fiscal literacy isn't an important concept that, for better or worse, might have to be taught in schools, but that we're getting dangerously close to "the knowledge you think is important sucks, and should be put on the chopping block in favor of the knowledge I think is important."
The thing is that we all know what happens when you assume. The goal of schools should be to create a prepared citizenry. As such, they should be providing students the basic tools to participate in society.
I don't know if there really is the dichotomy of Gatsby vs. Home budgets.
There isn't, but that's not the point. I could have chosen home budgets vs. calculus (cue that Oatmeal comic) or calculus vs. critical thinking or critical thinking vs. biology. Whatever the example I chose, I knew that somebody would go, "But... but... but... that's important!" and we'd risk getting bogged down in talking about the specific example.
And it's a conversation that comes up whenever anybody actually says, "Hey, maybe the priorities we've been pushing on our teenagers - which haven't changed significantly in over 50 years, for the most part - need to be re-envisioned." It's a whole herd of sacred cows.
I'm sympathetic to what I think you're saying here, but it also might just be an unfortunate fact that there are only limited ways to discuss education productively without getting into a discussion of the value of particular subjects (and thus triggering the stampede of sacred cows). When it comes to those cows, I tend to think that philosophy should be offered in HS and formal logic should be required, but I'm obviously not impartial in that regard.
I'm also, actually, okay with expanding the amount of our lives that we spend in school. Human productivity has increased to the degree where we need spend less of our lives actually working in order to support ourselves over the whole of our lives; we could set some of the surplus production technology affords us aside and use it to support more extensive schooling. And I think this would be a reasonable thing to do given that schooling is rewarding both personally and socially.
most of the kids in my school that didn't go to college already had trade skill employment that they were planning on making a career. work part time at a car garage, graduate high school and move on to full time.
Given the high unemployment among people with only a high school degree, it's safe to say that that's now how it works out for most people.
this was almost 10 years ago so times are a bit different, but is the current job market any better for college graduates? is their situation any better with 100k in college loans?
Posts
The point would seem to be that lack of standerdized results is making it impossible to see just how bad the US education system is.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Affiliated in what way?
@Shryke
We have standardized testing, though, in the form of SATs. And is it really a secret to anyone how bad the education system is?
This was the point of No Child Left Behind. It allowed them to go from shitty inner city schools to the 'burbs where all the money is.
Give the kids the education, and they should be able to pass any said test, go to college, etc. Too bad it didn't work out for shit though.
speaking as someone who has done test prep instruction for the SAT.
The SAT is an awful test that doesn't even seem to give any indication about what a student knows nor their ability to apply it.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The major difference between secondary education and higher education is that the former is generalized and the latter is specialized. A higher education should not be a requirement for getting any non-manual-labor job, nor should it be considered necessary to be an informed citizen in general.
If a higher education is necessary for these things, I think that's a sign that our secondary education isn't doing its job.
Well, there's a question to be asked here - our education system is poor, but compared to what?
If you want to compare our education system to before we had a federal office of education (1860-something) then yeah we're doing a lot better.
If you want to compare our education system to other countries - like, say, Finland? What do you see? More federal control over education and more federal spending on education. Clearly these aren't the only differences, but I'm constraining the argument to the question, "should we have a federal Department of Education?"
If the DoE is a failure, it's a failure because it's not big enough.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The usual argument is that a country the size and structure of the US benefits more from state-run educationboards that target the specific needs and wants of the particular state. The federal government is too big to accurately do that.
Also American Exceptionalism and socialist nanny-states and stuff.
That's happening. A lot of colleges run high schools for exceptional students, allowing them to take college classes along with their course work.
They are called Early College High Schools:
http://www.earlycolleges.org/
We can't even figure out what the goal of our country is.
Half our political spectrum seems to think the goal of us, as a nation, is "lower taxes"
It's too bad the conservatives don't have a functioning arts and entertainment arm. I'd honestly love to see the movie version of the conservative dream society.
At least in terms of spending though, they're pretty comparable, from the stats I've been seeing.
The issue isn't really $$$, it's how they're spent. Which we apparently suck at.
I don't think spending less is an appropriate solution, but we do need to somehow spend smarter. Maybe a one time investment to update facilities, books, etc across the board is worth considering, but throwing money at the problem isn't a real solution.
Facilities spending isn't the problem. If there is one thing school boards are good at, it's building structures. This is probably because the nation's school boards tend to gravitate between controlling blocks of construction contractors and crazy social conservatives/anti-tax jihadists.
The one thing the nation could do to improve school quality is to provide a base level of teacher pay. The nations that do education well pay their teachers a competitive wage, and the federal government could do a lot more to make sure that local politics and economics do not dictate completely dictate the salaries of educators.
A university degree is not "required" in that you need the skills. It's required because it's a great screening tool. And there is pretty much nothing you can do about that.
And we seem to be fast approaching the point where there's just not enough TIME in secondary education to teach all the shit we want to or should teach children.
Want to? Sure. Because regardless of the subject or field, there's going to be somebody who argues that it should be taught in high school. If you try to please everybody, then we'll end up trying to educate an army of doctor engineer lawyer philosopher violin-playing athletic 18-year-olds. God forbid we try to reduce mandatory literature curriculum from, say, 4 years down to 3 to make room for household finance. Our teenagers might not know how to balance a budget, but by the good lord's name they WILL read The Great Gatsby!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Reading comprehension is important.
Here's the thing.
You can make a valid claim that the state governments, overall, are doing a poor job of public education. I'd say the root cause of why the school districts that are failing are failing is due to the massive funding disparity between poor and rich districts, since most (if not all) public elementary and secondary schools are funded through property taxation.
I am baffled as to how the failings of state governments means that the federal government should have even less oversight over public education than it does now. Especially since the Department of Education already has a lot less oversight of public schools than many people assume.
Ron Paul's shtick is "the federal government sucks, the state governments are always better", regardless of the actual reality of how, in many cases, state and local governments are the ones failing.
In Virginia you can take courses at Northern Virginia community college while in high school. The teachers are often the same at other state schools (ie Mason) and the credits transfer to pretty much any local school.
It's pretty cool. School is actually affordable and the bills payable in VA. Unless you pull a stupid and go to private school and a get a useless liberal arts degree and pay it all on loans. But in that case you have only yourself to blame.
I can't tell if you're saying I misunderstood your post, or if you're saying that four years of literature classes are necessary for functional reading comprehension.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm saying English class is important for many things. Books, specifically, for reading comprehension.
And you can say it's "not necessary", but the evidence seems to be that it's instead "not enough".
Thanks for proving my point exactly.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't know if there really is the dichotomy of Gatsby vs. Home budgets.
Huh? What are you trying to say?
The assumption is that parents would teach their children how to balance a budget, since they have a much better grasp on what their actual budgets are.
Not saying that basic fiscal literacy isn't an important concept that, for better or worse, might have to be taught in schools, but that we're getting dangerously close to "the knowledge you think is important sucks, and should be put on the chopping block in favor of the knowledge I think is important."
There isn't, but that's not the point. I could have chosen home budgets vs. calculus (cue that Oatmeal comic) or calculus vs. critical thinking or critical thinking vs. biology. Whatever the example I chose, I knew that somebody would go, "But... but... but... that's important!" and we'd risk getting bogged down in talking about the specific example.
And it's a conversation that comes up whenever anybody actually says, "Hey, maybe the priorities we've been pushing on our teenagers - which haven't changed significantly in over 50 years, for the most part - need to be re-envisioned." It's a whole herd of sacred cows.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
considering my grandparents went to syracuse university for $300 a semester with no need for college loans I'm not so sure.
honestly a lot of people are getting degrees with loans they will never pay off. I think it should be considered if getting that much debt is even worth it. there are non college career paths.
Did you ever consider that they are all important?
And you are wrong, our priorities of what should be taught HAVE changed significantly in the past decades. They've increased substantially.
for a lot of people there really aren't. The jobs that a high school grad or dropout can get these days aren't what I'd call a"career path". Even the army is barely recruiting any more.
Sure, a few people can start there own business like Steve jobs, but it's ridiculous to expect everyone to do that .
In other countries, sure, and in some specific school districts, or at some private, charter, or magnet schools. But that's part of the danger of making generalizations about the US, since our education system is so decentralized. It's almost tautologically true that we haven't had any national curriculum reform, because we don't set curricula on a national level.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You met a dumb girl, therefore all public education is a failure?
Where did you go to school that that is even an argument you would entertain?
By his measure WSU should be nuked into oblivion.
By his measure this thread should get locked for failing to produce good discussion.
Hey now, I'm doing ugly all by myself.
Given the high unemployment among people with only a high school degree, it's safe to say that that's now how it works out for most people.
It's hard to be objective if you tutor remedial math in college. Similarly, it's difficult for any retail employee to have faith in humanity.
The thing is that we all know what happens when you assume. The goal of schools should be to create a prepared citizenry. As such, they should be providing students the basic tools to participate in society.
I'm sympathetic to what I think you're saying here, but it also might just be an unfortunate fact that there are only limited ways to discuss education productively without getting into a discussion of the value of particular subjects (and thus triggering the stampede of sacred cows). When it comes to those cows, I tend to think that philosophy should be offered in HS and formal logic should be required, but I'm obviously not impartial in that regard.
I'm also, actually, okay with expanding the amount of our lives that we spend in school. Human productivity has increased to the degree where we need spend less of our lives actually working in order to support ourselves over the whole of our lives; we could set some of the surplus production technology affords us aside and use it to support more extensive schooling. And I think this would be a reasonable thing to do given that schooling is rewarding both personally and socially.
this was almost 10 years ago so times are a bit different, but is the current job market any better for college graduates? is their situation any better with 100k in college loans?