The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
What to teach in public schools?
Litejedi
New York CityRegistered User regular
New York CityRegistered User regular
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.
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.
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.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.
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
Litejedi on
0
Posts
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!).
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.
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.
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
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.
I guess you mean more programs like International Baccalaureate and AP?
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.
So many people go on to work shitty jobs instead of being carpenters because the options are either college or McDonald's.
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 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.
Basic lit/writing courses notwithstanding, I agree.
That makes more sense. You had me confused there for a second.
I suspect that universities have a lot to do with that though.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.