As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

What to teach in public schools?

LitejediLitejedi New York CityRegistered User regular
edited October 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
Split from the presidency thread. Should we mandate higher math and science in our public school systems? What should the purpose of schooling be? Etc.
Quid wrote: »
Litejedi wrote: »
You also don't need to understand science, or history, or really, anything taught in school for "a number of jobs". School isn't just about job training. It's about understanding the world. Calculus (and other higher maths) lets you understand the world better. It changed my perspective on how everything interacts with everything else, for one thing.

This leads me to think that most people who don't like calculus didn't understand it very well.
No, see, history was entirely relevant to what I wanted to learn. And science is very valuable in flat out avoiding dumb mistakes like putting butter on burns or how, exactly, disease spreads.

And I flat don't like math that's not applicable to my life. It's not about not understanding it. I understood it just fine when I wanted to learn it. It was people's complete inability to demonstrate why I, someone who wanted to become a linguist, was better off taking an advanced math class over Russian. Can you eplain to me what I benefited from learning and later forgetting how to do a quadratic equation? And do you think several years of Latin should be required for everyone regardless of what they intend to do later in life?

Not latin, but some foreign language, yes. You were forced to take math over a language course? You couldn't take an additional language course as an elective? You were unable to take any language course because advanced math got in your way? What's the story here. Higher math helps one think critically and logically. You haven't retained many of the specifics about it, but it seems likely to me that it influenced you in ways that you don't realize.

Also, the lower grades are not about teaching you what you want to learn. They're about teaching you things that make you more knowledgeable about the world around you, so that you understand it better. Once you get to college, you can go to Brown and major in parmesan cheese crafting or underwater basket weaving, but until then you should have some structure in your learning. Furthermore, letting anyone take whichever classes they want is more likely to cut off options for a person, since many younger students make terrible decisions and will choose the easiest classes over the ones that challenge them. This limits their mental and educational development, and can keep them from finding out what they excel at and what they don't.

3DS FC: 1907-9450-1017
lj_graaaaahhhhh.gif
Litejedi on
«13456

Posts

  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I had to take 3 years of french which I forgot in 3 weeks. I had to take 4 years of phys ed and I fell out of shape in...ok, I was never in shape. I took like 4 years of American history and I never got taught a fucking thing about Europe before colonialism, or Asia ever.

    If I could've had complete control over my own schedule, there's a few things I would've changed. But there's far too many Americans already who completely lack any grasp of science, math, history, geography, or even English. I think you need to be exposed to everything at that age, and that means including things you'll never need later.

    Scooter on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    Thanatos on
  • Smug DucklingSmug Duckling Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    Seriously?

    How the hell can you tell before Grade 11 or so if someone is college-bound?

    Lots of kids goof off for most of High School and get their act together in the last couple of years.

    Smug Duckling on
    smugduckling,pc,days.png
  • Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    if kids want to be dumb, let them be dumb

    like, say I'm a junior in high school
    and I've already taken four years of Latin and am taking second-year college mathematics, say
    and I'm happy with this choice, say

    I'm sure this will help me a whole ton in college, sure

    but if someone is content with her ignorance, fine! If you don't want to be part of what is maybe considered to be the intellectual elite, schools shouldn't force you to

    Randall_Flagg on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Litejedi wrote: »
    Not latin, but some foreign language, yes. You were forced to take math over a language course? You couldn't take an additional language course as an elective? You were unable to take any language course because advanced math got in your way? What's the story here. Higher math helps one think critically and logically. You haven't retained many of the specifics about it, but it seems likely to me that it influenced you in ways that you don't realize.
    Algebra and Geometry helped teach me to think critically and logically. Why Was Algebra II also required? And it's not as if math is the only way to teach people to use logic or critical thinking skills.
    Also, the lower grades are not about teaching you what you want to learn. They're about teaching you things that make you more knowledgeable about the world around you, so that you understand it better. Once you get to college, you can go to Brown and major in parmesan cheese crafting or underwater basket weaving, but until then you should have some structure in your learning. Furthermore, letting anyone take whichever classes they want is more likely to cut off options for a person, since many younger students make terrible decisions and will choose the easiest classes over the ones that challenge them. This limits their mental and educational development, and can keep them from finding out what they excel at and what they don't.
    Stop giving useless easy classes in school would be a great way to avoid this. I'm not saying don't give teenagers challenging work, but there are plenty who at the age of 16 have an idea of what it is they want to do and with the help of a counselor whether or not it includes certain subjects.

    Now please show why, when a student shows both aptitude and preference in other areas, they should be required to take higher math after Algebra and Geometry? Is two years not enough exposure to math? Why isn't it enough?

    Edit: Keep in mind, I'm not advocating teaching kids how to barely read and write. I'm advocating not requiring courses that have fuck all to do with the vast majority of people's lives. Yes, it's important. So is Latin but I don't pretend it should be required for students because, hey, they might want to go on to be masters of Latin based languages.

    Quid on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    I am of the opinion that trades ought to be hyped up, at least a third as much as college is. Councilors will fill out college packets for all 600 kids in a class but you won't hear a mention of how well a good electrician or mason can do, especially compared to Dude X who graduates with a degree in Generic Studies and gets a job warming a desk for 20k a year.

    Scooter on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    Seriously?

    How the hell can you tell before Grade 11 or so if someone is college-bound?

    Lots of kids goof off for most of High School and get their act together in the last couple of years.
    I agree with Than, and lots of countries do it.

    You make trade schools and academic schools, and around grade 9 or 10, you tell the kids they can either go on an academic track or a trade track. They then apply to those schools, and those schools are able to focus on those subjects which are relevant to the track that the people have chosen. Engineering / Technical students would get some history, I'm sure, but not to the extent that the Humanities students would get. Obviously the Humanities would be spared some of the higher level math and science you would expect an Engineering / Technical student to get. So on and so forth.

    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Scooter wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    I am of the opinion that trades ought to be hyped up, at least a third as much as college is. Councilors will fill out college packets for all 600 kids in a class but you won't hear a mention of how well a good electrician or mason can do, especially compared to Dude X who graduates with a degree in Generic Studies and gets a job warming a desk for 20k a year.

    Aye, one of the big pushes up here recently has been toward skilled trades. When I was in High School, the Guidance Councillors practically spit on you for being a dirty commoner if you wanted to go down that track. They are trying to change that now, but I don't know how successfull they've been.
    Algebra and Geometry helped teach me to think critically and logically. Why Was Algebra II also required? And it's not as if math is the only way to teach people to use logic or critical thinking skills.

    A course on logic itself might be a better idea. And I mean like general logic, not the math stuff. Teaching kids critical thinking should be something we do.

    shryke on
  • Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    also, if you seriously can't think of any applications of calculus, you probably weren't paying attention too well in calculus, because textbooks are chock-full of them

    hell, I use calculus every day; not in maths class, just in general: for determining the volume of an object, say, or for figuring out my pace in cross-country, or for figuring out how fast the brakes on my car work

    there are just SO MANY THINGS that calculus is directly applicable for that are actually pretty helpful

    Randall_Flagg on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Scooter wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    I am of the opinion that trades ought to be hyped up, at least a third as much as college is. Councilors will fill out college packets for all 600 kids in a class but you won't hear a mention of how well a good electrician or mason can do, especially compared to Dude X who graduates with a degree in Generic Studies and gets a job warming a desk for 20k a year.
    And having worked at an HVAC company, I can say that a person with in-depth knowledge of trade systems like heating and cooling is a rare find. Most companies have to hire unskilled labor and then train internally, simply hoping that the person they choose to invest in is worth it.

    Why these guys who end up working there and getting trained by private firms couldn't have been learning this stuff instead of the foreign languages and humanities subjects that they neither cared for nor retained in the first place is inefficiency at its finest.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • AresProphetAresProphet Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    I guess you mean more programs like International Baccalaureate and AP?

    AresProphet on
    ex9pxyqoxf6e.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."

    Thanatos on
  • DoxaDoxa Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I think one thing that will help our school system is a course in civics.

    We get half a year of U.S. Government...then what? nothing.

    I don't feel like elaborating at the moment, maybe tomorrow when its not as late.

    Doxa on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Scooter wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    I am of the opinion that trades ought to be hyped up, at least a third as much as college is. Councilors will fill out college packets for all 600 kids in a class but you won't hear a mention of how well a good electrician or mason can do, especially compared to Dude X who graduates with a degree in Generic Studies and gets a job warming a desk for 20k a year.
    Seriously.

    So many people go on to work shitty jobs instead of being carpenters because the options are either college or McDonald's.

    Quid on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    also, if you seriously can't think of any applications of calculus, you probably weren't paying attention too well in calculus, because textbooks are chock-full of them

    hell, I use calculus every day; not in maths class, just in general: for determining the volume of an object, say, or for figuring out my pace in cross-country, or for figuring out how fast the brakes on my car work

    there are just SO MANY THINGS that calculus is directly applicable for that are actually pretty helpful
    Everything you just listed there is basic algebra. That, or your basic algebra class was crap.

    Quid on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    also, if you seriously can't think of any applications of calculus, you probably weren't paying attention too well in calculus, because textbooks are chock-full of them

    hell, I use calculus every day; not in maths class, just in general: for determining the volume of an object, say, or for figuring out my pace in cross-country, or for figuring out how fast the brakes on my car work

    there are just SO MANY THINGS that calculus is directly applicable for that are actually pretty helpful
    I never, ever, ever use calculus, ever, and I would say that's true of at least 90% of the people I'm acquainted with. I'd say my bosses don't do fucking calculus, either.

    Yes, it's applicable in many situations in a trivial sense, but it's far from universally applicable to most people's everyday needs.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.
    I guess you mean more programs like International Baccalaureate and AP?
    No, I mean more programs like trade schools and apprenticeships.

    The current secondary school regime is completely focused around kids who want to go to college, and kids who don't are basically told "you're on your own." It's fucking stupid.

    Thanatos on
  • AresProphetAresProphet Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."

    Basic lit/writing courses notwithstanding, I agree.
    No, I mean more programs like trade schools and apprenticeships.

    The current secondary school regime is completely focused around kids who want to go to college, and kids who don't are basically told "you're on your own." It's fucking stupid.
    That makes more sense. You had me confused there for a second.

    I suspect that universities have a lot to do with that though.

    AresProphet on
    ex9pxyqoxf6e.png
  • Simon MoonSimon Moon Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    Except this would cause an uproar, as "everyone knows" that you have to get a college degree to get a job in this country, so those in the non-college-track would be effectively branded as somehow less-than. Creating such a separation would invoke cries of every -ism you can think of.

    Simon Moon on
    Steam: simon moon
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."
    Here here!

    My university put a stop to it the year I graduated, thank fucking christ. It was immensely stupid because as far as I can tell it essentially worked off the assumption that one did nothing with their spare time and had no external hobbies.

    electricitylikesme on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.
    I guess you mean more programs like International Baccalaureate and AP?
    No, I mean more programs like trade schools and apprenticeships.

    The current secondary school regime is completely focused around kids who want to go to college, and kids who don't are basically told "you're on your own." It's fucking stupid.
    To say nothing of lack of teaching practical skills. Home Ec should be expanded and made mandatory. Kids should be leaving high school knowing how to create a budget and able to cook a meal. But instead we have college graduates able to do neither.

    Quid on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."

    Basic lit/writing courses notwithstanding, I agree.
    Writing I agree with, but for non-humanities students, I frankly see little point in literature courses.

    If they want to know about literature, I recommend they read a book. I see no point in requiring physics majors to become acquainted with post-colonial British literature or famous Romantic poets, for example, unless they see it as a hobby.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.
    I guess you mean more programs like International Baccalaureate and AP?
    No, I mean more programs like trade schools and apprenticeships.

    The current secondary school regime is completely focused around kids who want to go to college, and kids who don't are basically told "you're on your own." It's fucking stupid.
    To say nothing of lack of teaching practical skills. Home Ec should be expanded and made mandatory. Kids should be leaving high school knowing how to create a budget and able to cook a meal. But instead we have college graduates able to do neither.
    Yeah I am seriously skeptical of the value of ideas like this. Because what you end up with, is a class with a bunch of students who are either smart enough to learn these things on their own (and hence for whom it is a waste of time) and a bunch who wouldn't learn these things on their own, and are going to pay absolutely no attention to it.

    No one who posts about how in debt they are doesn't know how to create a budget, their problem is that they lack the self-control for their spending.

    electricitylikesme on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."
    Here here!

    My university put a stop to it the year I graduated, thank fucking christ. It was immensely stupid because as far as I can tell it essentially worked off the assumption that one did nothing with their spare time and had no external hobbies.
    Australian general ed. requirements are an absolute walk in the park compared to most American schools, too. The schools I went to expected 2+ years worth of general education alone to complete a four year degree.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."
    Here here!

    My university put a stop to it the year I graduated, thank fucking christ. It was immensely stupid because as far as I can tell it essentially worked off the assumption that one did nothing with their spare time and had no external hobbies.
    Australian general ed. requirements are an absolute walk in the park compared to most American schools. The schools I went to expected 2+ years worth of general education alone to complete a four year degree.
    Wow, and to think that that would've just had to fit in on top of my degree where we did the 4 major science disciplines side by the side.

    electricitylikesme on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."
    Basic lit/writing courses notwithstanding, I agree.
    Fuck that. Basic lit/writing are what high school is for. And I'm not saying colleges shouldn't offer electives, or people shouldn't have an opportunity to take classes outside of their major; quite the opposite, in fact. The less you require people to take as far as general ed goes, the more opportunity they're given for taking things outside their major that they actually want to take.

    Thanatos on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What we need to do is separate college-track kids from non-college-track kids at a much earlier age.

    Seriously?

    How the hell can you tell before Grade 11 or so if someone is college-bound?

    Lots of kids goof off for most of High School and get their act together in the last couple of years.

    This is easily fixed by either adjusting college entrance requirements (at least at state schools, and obviously only when appropriate to the major) or expanding our post-secondary vocational schools/community colleges...or both.

    More in a sec...
    Quid wrote: »
    Stop giving useless easy classes in school would be a great way to avoid this. I'm not saying don't give teenagers challenging work, but there are plenty who at the age of 16 have an idea of what it is they want to do and with the help of a counselor whether or not it includes certain subjects.

    Now please show why, when a student shows both aptitude and preference in other areas, they should be required to take higher math after Algebra and Geometry? Is two years not enough exposure to math? Why isn't it enough?

    Edit: Keep in mind, I'm not advocating teaching kids how to barely read and write. I'm advocating not requiring courses that have fuck all to do with the vast majority of people's lives. Yes, it's important. So is Latin but I don't pretend it should be required for students because, hey, they might want to go on to be masters of Latin based languages.

    Now, keep in mind that I admit if a guidance counselor is selling a curriculum to a kid hard it might as well be required...but in most cases I think you guys would be surprised to find out what was actually required to graduate high school in your state/district (depending where the mandate comes from).

    I know in my district only two years of math were required, and nothing beyond algebra. Only two years (might have been one) of science, and they could both be of the "rocks pretty" variety. No foreign language was required, and I don't believe a fine art was either. Basically the only subjects where four years were required were English (combination of literature and grammar/writing) and Social Studies (combination of history and economics/civics).

    As far as graduation requirements went, students had a lot of freedom in their schedule. Wanted to take four years of a language and skip the extra math? You could do that. Want to double up on theatre and skip science? No problemo.

    The "requirements" as most people think of them are the university entrance requirements. Note that I say university entrance requirements because they are also not generally requirements at your local community college, either. Guidance counselors push them hard, but they're not mandatory to get your cap and gown.

    And if you're willing to do two years at a community college, they're not strictly required for your bachelor's, either. Plus, in most cases, deficiencies on one or another can be waived anyway (at least for state schools, depending on selectivity and other qualities of the applicant).


    So, what should be taught in our schools? Whatever the kids want, within some loose guidelines. I'd argue that allowing the little motherfuckers to vote suggests we should ensure they get a proper treatment in history, civics, and perhaps a bit more economics than they get now. I think four years of English isn't a horrible idea, though honestly I think a lot of the time that could be cut back to three. And I agree that mathematics does encourage critical and logical thinking, but I see no need for much past algebra....maybe add a general logic course as an additional option as well (which my university's math department does).

    mcdermott on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Yeah I am seriously skeptical of the value of ideas like this. Because what you end up with, is a class with a bunch of students who are either smart enough to learn these things on their own (and hence for whom it is a waste of time) and a bunch who wouldn't learn these things on their own, and are going to pay absolutely no attention to it.

    No one who posts about how in debt they are doesn't know how to create a budget, their problem is that they lack the self-control for their spending.
    A lot of them get there because they don't realize how much money they just fritter away. While self control is certainly an issue, it can often be much more easily curtailed when people see how much they'd be making if they stopped using the vending machine twice a day.

    Edit: Of course, this is all working in the realm of required classes. I just can't fathom requiring higher math and not making sure after school they can not give themselves food poisoning.

    Quid on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Fuck that. Basic lit/writing are what high school is for. And I'm not saying colleges shouldn't offer electives, or people shouldn't have an opportunity to take classes outside of their major; quite the opposite, in fact. The less you require people to take as far as general ed goes, the more opportunity they're given for taking things outside their major that they actually want to take.
    I'll ardently defend composition courses, even in upper division education, especially since at the moment high school English teachers are expected to teach lit AND comp at the same time, when really the two things are two wholly different disciplines, and in my experience it's generally the composition that gets underserved.

    I don't care what your discipline is, you will be served by studying composition. People should not be allowed to get on without a course in it, even if it is simple or remedial for some (and in the end even good writers can always use practice).

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • AresProphetAresProphet Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."

    Basic lit/writing courses notwithstanding, I agree.
    Writing I agree with, but for non-humanities students, I frankly see little point in literature courses.

    If they want to know about literature, I recommend they read a book. I see no point in requiring physics majors to become acquainted with post-colonial British literature, for example, unless they see it as a hobby.

    You really can't separate the two.

    I do think that lit courses should spend more time studying essays, articles, and other nonfiction. Most of the ones I've had never touch nonfic.

    Basic communication is surprisingly hard for a lot of people, and it's pretty obvious when someone just barely squeaked through high school english classes and were thankful they'd never have to write again.

    And then they need to write a cover letter or something.

    AresProphet on
    ex9pxyqoxf6e.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).

    I don't want to fucking talk about this. My degree requires 130 credits compared to the 120 that is normal in other majors, because we have a fuckload of technical classes we need for our major...which often include some loosely defined "labs" so that even more hours of instruction can be squeezed in under the 2:1 credit policy for "labs"...but god forbid we don't take Native American Studies or fucking Music.

    Our senior capstone project just went from a yearlong project to a one-semester project (let me tell you how fun that is) because apparently the ABET requirements or something now include "interdisciplinary design"...which means we have to spend an entire semester on some lameass project with other majors (what, exactly, are two ChemE's, one ME, and one EE supposed to design on a student budget with one semester that uses all group members?). Not that this wasn't a good thing...there were benefits to the course. But unfortunately this means that half our capstone project had to get cut because we were already at 130 credits to graduate.

    And our senior design course has seriously suffered for this.

    But of course there's no fucking way we could have simply gotten one of the core requirements waived instead.

    mcdermott on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Fuck that. Basic lit/writing are what high school is for. And I'm not saying colleges shouldn't offer electives, or people shouldn't have an opportunity to take classes outside of their major; quite the opposite, in fact. The less you require people to take as far as general ed goes, the more opportunity they're given for taking things outside their major that they actually want to take.
    I'll ardently defend composition courses, even in upper division education, especially since at the moment high school English teachers are expected to teach lit AND comp at the same time, when really the two things are two wholly different disciplines, and in my experience it's generally the composition that gets underserved.

    I don't care what your discipline is, you will be served by studying composition. People should not be allowed to get on without a course in it, even if it is simple or remedial for some (and in the end even good writers can always use practice).
    In a regime where academic-track students are separated from technical/trade-track students, a required composition course in college would be wholly unnecessary.

    Thanatos on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).

    I don't want to fucking talk about this. My degree requires 130 credits compared to the 120 that is normal in other majors, because we have a fuckload of technical classes we need for our major...which often include some loosely defined "labs" so that even more hours of instruction can be squeezed in under the 2:1 credit policy for "labs"...but god forbid we don't take Native American Studies or fucking Music.

    Our senior capstone project just went from a yearlong project to a one-semester project (let me tell you how fun that is) because apparently the ABET requirements or something now include "interdisciplinary design"...which means we have to spend an entire semester on some lameass project with other majors (what, exactly, are two ChemE's, one ME, and one EE supposed to design on a student budget with one semester that uses all group members?). Not that this wasn't a good thing...there were benefits to the course. But unfortunately this means that half our capstone project had to get cut because we were already at 130 credits to graduate.

    And our senior design course has seriously suffered for this.

    But of course there's no fucking way we could have simply gotten one of the core requirements waived instead.
    Engineers at my school had to take four non-engineering courses. Like, total. That was one semester's worth of classes. That's how it should be, at worst.

    Thanatos on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."
    Basic lit/writing courses notwithstanding, I agree.
    Fuck that. Basic lit/writing are what high school is for. And I'm not saying colleges shouldn't offer electives, or people shouldn't have an opportunity to take classes outside of their major; quite the opposite, in fact. The less you require people to take as far as general ed goes, the more opportunity they're given for taking things outside their major that they actually want to take.
    I'd like to stress that saying something like "future physics majors don't need to take lit courses" is utter garbage. The greatest shock to me when I hit university was the sheer number of people who absolutely did not understand how to construct sentences, how to use their tenses and the general meaning of the words they wrote.

    Even in my research group, we spend a hell of a lot of time addressing the exact wording of people's presentations, papers and theses because being able to write clearly and understanding the nuance of English fundamentally changes how you are able to present your work to others, not to mention makes it a lot easier to give presentations.

    And it's not just that - you also need to have a broader idea about how narratives are built, since whatever you're doing, in many ways it becomes a narrative of some sort and so understanding ideas like framing and flow are equally important.

    And this isn't just for academic disciplines - I cannot think of a single job or position you could hold anywhere today where being able to write well and present yourself well (in terms of speaking) is not damn important.

    electricitylikesme on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    You really can't separate the two.

    I do think that lit courses should spend more time studying essays, articles, and other nonfiction. Most of the ones I've had never touch nonfic.

    Basic communication is surprisingly hard for a lot of people, and it's pretty obvious when someone just barely squeaked through high school english classes and were thankful they'd never have to write again.

    And then they need to write a cover letter or something.
    Disagree -- you can separate composition and literature. You should separate composition and literature. Reading is one thing. Effectively writing is something else entirely.

    What part of understanding metaphor or theme in a novel goes into writing effectively? Do you really need to know that Wordsworth and Coleridge launched the Romantic movement in order to write an effective informative essay? Does analyzing the gender roles in Pride and Prejudice really help form an argumentative essay?

    They don't. Obviously they overlap a little, as reading good authors can help your own writing, but I expect people to read outside of required coursework (much like I and everyone I know did during college) so there's not too much point in forcing them to take lit courses on top of that. Lit and comp are separate disciplines.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Fuck that. Basic lit/writing are what high school is for. And I'm not saying colleges shouldn't offer electives, or people shouldn't have an opportunity to take classes outside of their major; quite the opposite, in fact. The less you require people to take as far as general ed goes, the more opportunity they're given for taking things outside their major that they actually want to take.
    I'll ardently defend composition courses, even in upper division education, especially since at the moment high school English teachers are expected to teach lit AND comp at the same time, when really the two things are two wholly different disciplines, and in my experience it's generally the composition that gets underserved.

    I don't care what your discipline is, you will be served by studying composition. People should not be allowed to get on without a course in it, even if it is simple or remedial for some (and in the end even good writers can always use practice).
    In a regime where academic-track students are separated from technical/trade-track students, a required composition course in college would be wholly unnecessary.
    NOPE!! -- even electricians should be in writing courses, because even electricians will have to communicate their ideas to someone else at some point. Humanities should probably have a greater emphasis on it, but I still expect electricians, doctors, auto mechanics, carpenters, EVERYONE to be able to (or at least try to) concisely and effectively communicate themselves and their ideas.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).
    Yeah, fucking general ed is fucking retarded. My school decided that it was a shitty idea, and more or less put a stop to it. There's no reason for your postsecondary education to be "well-rounded."
    Basic lit/writing courses notwithstanding, I agree.
    Fuck that. Basic lit/writing are what high school is for. And I'm not saying colleges shouldn't offer electives, or people shouldn't have an opportunity to take classes outside of their major; quite the opposite, in fact. The less you require people to take as far as general ed goes, the more opportunity they're given for taking things outside their major that they actually want to take.
    I'd like to stress that saying something like "future physics majors don't need to take lit courses" is utter garbage. The greatest shock to me when I hit university was the sheer number of people who absolutely did not understand how to construct sentences, how to use their tenses and the general meaning of the words they wrote.

    Even in my research group, we spend a hell of a lot of time addressing the exact wording of people's presentations, papers and theses because being able to write clearly and understanding the nuance of English fundamentally changes how you are able to present your work to others, not to mention makes it a lot easier to give presentations.

    And it's not just that - you also need to have a broader idea about how narratives are built, since whatever you're doing, in many ways it becomes a narrative of some sort and so understanding ideas like framing and flow are equally important.

    And this isn't just for academic disciplines - I cannot think of a single job or position you could hold anywhere today where being able to write well and present yourself well (in terms of speaking) is not damn important.
    I'm not disagreeing. And if it's important enough that your majors be able to write, it should be incorporated into your major, in a "writing for [insert major here] majors" type of course, instead of "everyone has to take 'Composition and British Literature 101.'"

    Thanatos on
  • LitejediLitejedi New York CityRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Fuck that. Basic lit/writing are what high school is for. And I'm not saying colleges shouldn't offer electives, or people shouldn't have an opportunity to take classes outside of their major; quite the opposite, in fact. The less you require people to take as far as general ed goes, the more opportunity they're given for taking things outside their major that they actually want to take.
    I'll ardently defend composition courses, even in upper division education, especially since at the moment high school English teachers are expected to teach lit AND comp at the same time, when really the two things are two wholly different disciplines, and in my experience it's generally the composition that gets underserved.

    I don't care what your discipline is, you will be served by studying composition. People should not be allowed to get on without a course in it, even if it is simple or remedial for some (and in the end even good writers can always use practice).

    Everyone has different ideas about what is "required" for a school to teach, it seems. I am of the opinion that students (in general) are served best by challenging them at every turn, and that most of the knowledge I acquired was useful to me (if not directly then tangentially). So, that's only one person's opinion, but it does not seem we should de-emphasize science and mathematics even more than they already are in this country. I think the lack of emphasis is one reason why, with regards to the lower-grades, that Asia and Europe are crushing us in competitiveness in these areas. Further reducing the emphasis would exacerbate the problem.

    That being said, the trade/college track system is a great idea. Realistically assessing someone's potential and having them go on a trade track would likely save a lot of headaches for both the student and the school system.

    Litejedi on
    3DS FC: 1907-9450-1017
    lj_graaaaahhhhh.gif
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I'm not disagreeing. And if it's important enough that your majors be able to write, it should be incorporated into your major, in a "writing for [insert major here] majors" type of course, instead of "everyone has to take 'Composition and British Literature 101.'"
    Exactly -- composition and literature are separate subjects, and really need to be treated as such more often.

    Still -- each and every discipline should still be taking composition courses. It's one of the few universal subjects I advocate teaching at all levels of education.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Trying to teach everyone, everything, results in lots of people who aren't particularly good at anything (this particularly stands out as a problem with our ridiculous universal education requirements at college -- college! Upper division!).

    I don't want to fucking talk about this. My degree requires 130 credits compared to the 120 that is normal in other majors, because we have a fuckload of technical classes we need for our major...which often include some loosely defined "labs" so that even more hours of instruction can be squeezed in under the 2:1 credit policy for "labs"...but god forbid we don't take Native American Studies or fucking Music.

    Our senior capstone project just went from a yearlong project to a one-semester project (let me tell you how fun that is) because apparently the ABET requirements or something now include "interdisciplinary design"...which means we have to spend an entire semester on some lameass project with other majors (what, exactly, are two ChemE's, one ME, and one EE supposed to design on a student budget with one semester that uses all group members?). Not that this wasn't a good thing...there were benefits to the course. But unfortunately this means that half our capstone project had to get cut because we were already at 130 credits to graduate.

    And our senior design course has seriously suffered for this.

    But of course there's no fucking way we could have simply gotten one of the core requirements waived instead.
    Engineers at my school had to take four non-engineering courses. Like, total. That was one semester's worth of classes. That's how it should be, at worst.

    We have many, many more.

    First, five core classes, one of each: arts, humanities, social, diversity, and an extra of any of the above (your choice). Then there's the verbal requirement, either through college seminar or an actual public speaking course (your choice). Then a writing requirment, either the basic "crank out essays" writing course or, if you score high enough on the SAT verbal, you can take something else (like a technical writing course). Then no less than two professional electives outside your major, at least one of which will generally also be outside engineering (in my case, a computer science course and a business course...the former I count as engineering).

    So that's...eight non-engineering courses. Or the better part of a year's worth. And obviously I'm counting chemistry and physics and the like as engineering courses, because it makes sense to. These are all non-math, non-science, non-engineering, basically "general ed" courses.


    EDIT: Note that the professional elective requirement isn't necessarily "encouraged" to be a non-engineering course (at least one of them), it's more out of necessity. Because usually you're trying to fit it into a schedule with 12-14 credits of engineering courses, including labs (so upwards of 16-18 hours spent each week in engineering courses). Business courses, at this point, are your "break." As for the writing, the basic "crank out stupid essays" course that everybody takes is going to be required for anybody not in about the 90th percentile on the SAT verbal. I suppose I can agree that the technical writing course is somewhat beneficial. I'll let you know when I take it next semester, right before graduating (real useful in my school career, that's for sure).

    mcdermott on
Sign In or Register to comment.