Can't quote on my phone, so: @L|ama: yeah, no calc in HS. This was over a decade ago, but my school district's hs math program went
algebra I
geometry
algebra II
pre-calculus
I failed algebra II on the first go so didn't make it to pre-calc but I understand it was the rest of what aproper algebra class should cover along with limits and maybe an intro to differentiation.
If you were in some advanced track in middle school in the district you could skip algebra I and take an optional advanced placement calculus class for college credit, but the school actively advised against it. I didn't go to middle school in the same state so was out of luck, plus the wholefailing algebra ii bit. My sister qualified for the AP calc class and my mom had to campaign the district superintendant to let her take a class at the local community college for credit as they wouldn't teach the AP classdue to lack of students.
Getting to college and having a professor explain math in a consistent, logical manner instead of memorization and drilling was a revelation. On the other hand I had a girlfriend at a Christian college whose calc I class didn't cover integration, so...
Calc 1 isn't supposed to cover integration, that's for calc II...
Picardathon on
0
Options
Muse Among MenSuburban Bunny Princess?Its time for a new shtick Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
I wouldn't mind a cursory look at calculus, and statistics seems like it would be interesting. I actually find physics and chemistry very interesting too, but neither are easy for me. As much as I like them I just had so much trouble with them. As far as cal and stats goes, well, I wouldn't take if I knew I'd be graded on it, especially if that grade could reflect poorly on me. I shake and freak out and have been asked to leave classrooms before for that reason, but that is just me. That said, many of these 'enrichment' classes might do well without testing. I know plenty of peers who are taking classes just because they are easy, even if they don't find them interesting, or have already taken them. Meanwhile there are classes they want to take but wont because they are worried a low mark will set them back when applying to college and for scholarships. Sometimes by low mark they mean getting B's instead of A's.
There are probably other ways to teach logic and critical thinking aside from advanced math. I liked geometry because it was reason in a way I could understand; that is to say, images. I loved the proofs and I loved that you could demonstrate them with images. For a long time I used drawings to solve algebra; often times I was correct but lost points because it wasn't the method the teacher wanted. I created charts and 'logic trees' and 'scales' to get to the answer. I wouldn't be surprised if other people were like this. Unfortunately this process is longer and often not neat enough to suit expectations/requirements so it isn't taught or even presented as an option. It was however an alternative way of solving problems (I now regret not having written my diy methods down for I have forgotten them) that worked for me where traditional math could not. Some people just don't have the mind for numbers but that doesn't mean we can't solve problems or learn reasoning or logic in other ways.
People mention foreign language . . . I don't know if it should be required. It just seems like it's own reward. I have trouble understanding why people don't take more of it! It is so nice to realize you can google something in another language when you aren't getting any results in English
Finance, civics, law, and economics I all agree should be learned. I know Econ is required at my school and civics and law might be covered in APUSGov but I don't know . . . so even if they are they would be elective for those who choose to take the AP class. Talking to see some seniors it seems that basic finance is part of a project they must do.
Nutrition/health was drilled into us since elementary. We have been required to take a health/nut. class in jr.high and highschool. It seems that isn't the case with many here?
Can't quote on my phone, so: @L|ama: yeah, no calc in HS. This was over a decade ago, but my school district's hs math program went
algebra I
geometry
algebra II
pre-calculus
I failed algebra II on the first go so didn't make it to pre-calc but I understand it was the rest of what aproper algebra class should cover along with limits and maybe an intro to differentiation.
If you were in some advanced track in middle school in the district you could skip algebra I and take an optional advanced placement calculus class for college credit, but the school actively advised against it. I didn't go to middle school in the same state so was out of luck, plus the wholefailing algebra ii bit. My sister qualified for the AP calc class and my mom had to campaign the district superintendant to let her take a class at the local community college for credit as they wouldn't teach the AP classdue to lack of students.
Getting to college and having a professor explain math in a consistent, logical manner instead of memorization and drilling was a revelation. On the other hand I had a girlfriend at a Christian college whose calc I class didn't cover integration, so...
Calc 1 isn't supposed to cover integration, that's for calc II...
That's a fairly slow pace for learning calculus, I think. Most calc I courses will at least teach you the basic concepts of integration and some methods for solving easy ones.
I wouldn't mind a cursory look at calculus, and statistics seems like it would be interesting. I actually find physics and chemistry very interesting too, but neither are easy for me. As much as I like them I just had so much trouble with them. As far as cal and stats goes, well, I wouldn't take if I knew I'd be graded on it, especially if that grade could reflect poorly on me. I shake and freak out and have been asked to leave classrooms before for that reason, but that is just me. That said, many of these 'enrichment' classes might do well without testing. I know plenty of peers who are taking classes just because they are easy, even if they don't find them interesting, or have already taken them. Meanwhile there are classes they want to take but wont because they are worried a low mark will set them back when applying to college and for scholarships. Sometimes by low mark they mean getting B's instead of A's.
There are probably other ways to teach logic and critical thinking aside from advanced math. I liked geometry because it was reason in a way I could understand; that is to say, images. I loved the proofs and I loved that you could demonstrate them with images. For a long time I used drawings to solve algebra; often times I was correct but lost points because it wasn't the method the teacher wanted. I created charts and 'logic trees' and 'scales' to get to the answer. I wouldn't be surprised if other people were like this. Unfortunately this process is longer and often not neat enough to suit expectations/requirements so it isn't taught or even presented as an option. It was however an alternative way of solving problems (I now regret not having written my diy methods down for I have forgotten them) that worked for me where traditional math could not. Some people just don't have the mind for numbers but that doesn't mean we can't solve problems or learn reasoning or logic in other ways.
I'm willing to bet you'd like calculus, at least more than you liked algebra. It's entirely dependent on proving theorems, and pretty much always has visual representations of any concept. At least, that's my view after finishing calc III last semester.
But the algebra involved in solving calculus problems would be a barrier, if you have trouble with that.
Well, that sounds like you're talking to me, so I'll just point out that I'm an engineering freshman right now and love it, so that's not where I'm coming from.
Really, how useful is calculus? Where is a person going to use calculus in their everyday life unless they're going into engineering, math, or the hard sciences?
Reading graphs is something that can be taught in fourth grade if that was the focus.
And how does stuff like the kinematic equations make our students better citizens?
The truth is, the primary focus of most mandatory math education is to give kids a facility with numbers. The problem is, that isn't teachable. Some kids (like myself) have it, and some kids plain don't. Forcing kids into it is just going to make more adults that find math annoying and confusing after it breaks away from adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing.
I could come up with reasonable situations where an average person might find a need for calculus in every day life, but honestly you're right; most people will very, very rarely if ever need to know any actual calculus.
But like I said earlier, I don't think that the point of teaching advanced mathematics or physics, or even biology or chemistry for that matter, is making the students memorize the subject matter. Maybe it's unique to physics or even just to my particular professors, but after we spent a year or two having the common formulae drilled into us we were told to forget them. Don't memorize the long, complicated formula. Don't try to remember exactly how to solve a particular problem. All the things that I really need to have memorized to solve the problems that appeared on my doctoral candidacy exam in physics I could fit on the front of an index card written in medium point sharpie. The thing you had to learn, eventually, was how to solve a problem.
I have a book on my bookshelf of Princeton Problems in Physics. They're example problems off of qualifiers given to Princeton grad students. Some of them are the kind of shit you'd expect: figure out the potential at a radial distance R on an infinite conductive plane from a half-shell of charge distribution rho or whatever. But then other ones are questions like: "How many gallons of gasoline are sold per day in the United States?" Nobody keeps shit like that memorized. So how do you answer that question? A hell of a lot of people wouldn't even know where to begin. You could have shown them an elliptical integral or something for all it means to them. If you have a solid background in complex problem solving, like you get in physics or engineering or mathematics beyond Algebra II or Calc I, you can break it down. People either fill up at a half tank or a full tank, so take a weighted average for laziness and say 2/3rds of a tank. Average tank size is probably around 15 gallons. Figure an average person fills up maybe once a week. Stagger it out so that you have 1/7th of all cars getting filled on any average day. Figure out how many people, on average, per car. How many people in the US? Something like 500 million. Etc. etc. A few steps down the line and I know how many gallons, back-of-the-envelope, order-of-magnitude, are sold a day in the US. The only fact I needed to have in my head was the population of the US; the rest are reasonable guesses.
Too many people I talk to see a complicated problem with a lot of unknowns or questions they've never considered and they just lock up and say "Uh uh! I don't know!" After you tackle enough hairy integrals or figure out how to break down enough complicated problems into manageable parts, you learn how to solve those things. That is why we need to teach people how to do 'hard' things like Calculus and Engineering.
We need to teach people Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Statistics, History, Literature, and all the rest not because people need to memorize all that shit and carry it around with them for their entire lives in case they're on Jeopardy one day. Teaching people all those subjects gives them an appreciation, hopefully, for the breadth of human knowledge, experience, and capability. How many people today are wasting money on bullshit pseudo-science and 'medical' quackery because they just accept whatever someone tells them? Or because they have no idea how the scientific method, medical studies, or statistics work?
Try to imagine me doing the phantom jerk while you say all of this. I mean, seriously, you think that highschool students need to study math every year of their life, and then some physics courses, just so that if somebody askd them a completely pointless question, and forbids them from doing a quick google search for the answer, they'll be able to estimate a very rough value for the answer? And that they couldn't possibly learn that from studying other subjects? Just because somebody's not studying advanced math or physical science doesn't mean they never learned to think logically.
I like that "mathematician's Lament" though, and I like his idea for teaching math in the same way we teach art. I find myself having to use artistic skills much more often in my daily life than advanced math.
Im just pissed off that on the job training is basically dead.
A lot of industries did OJT that worked. I work with a Perfusionist who learned on the job. Lots of jobs that were once something you could get to if you worked hard and applied yourself for apprentice and/or showed aptitude for are basically out of reach unless you go to school.
The sad thing is, the people pushing for these schools and licenses are a good portion of the people who never had to go to them.
Do you really need to go to school for 3 years to learn HVAC and how to use a drill and make measurements? Not unless you're retarded. But it's required anyway at this point. Meaning that working hard ends out being pretty useless.
I get that I'm probably bitter and jaded on the whole thing. I dropped out of high school and started working when I was 16. I haven't stopped since, and though I'm now approaching the age of 30 I still haven't been in a situation where I could pay my rent, eat, and go to school.
Without mid-level semi-skilled jobs or on the job training, you're fucked and stuck to a minimum wage job that is probably part time. If you even mention you're thinking about attending school, you may as well quit because your hours will vanish.
edit:
I get that I may never be a rocket scientist or surgeon. I'm okay with that. All I want is a fair shake at an opportunity to make money if I work hard. I've been trying to find a job in another state, in several in fact... where living is cheaper. Jobs I'm easily qualified for, I have plenty of references on my resume including glowing letters of recommendation from dozens of people including the director.
Doesn't matter, I don't know anyone. Knowing someone is literally the only way to get a job at this point. All those postings on that company website? Yeah, some assholes brother or cousin will get those.
edit2: I'm also sick and tired of people telling me to "just try real hard, go to school what's the big deal, <I/we> managed to do it!" Yeah 20 years ago, with your parents help and lower tuition costs. I'm already close to living on rice and beans, my hours vary so much I can't do anything about it. Even were school completely paid for, rent and food and bills require I am always available to take whatever I can get.
"Stop being so negative!"
"Try starving or being evicted then, silly goose!"
Can't quote on my phone, so: @L|ama: yeah, no calc in HS. This was over a decade ago, but my school district's hs math program went
algebra I
geometry
algebra II
pre-calculus
I failed algebra II on the first go so didn't make it to pre-calc but I understand it was the rest of what aproper algebra class should cover along with limits and maybe an intro to differentiation.
If you were in some advanced track in middle school in the district you could skip algebra I and take an optional advanced placement calculus class for college credit, but the school actively advised against it. I didn't go to middle school in the same state so was out of luck, plus the wholefailing algebra ii bit. My sister qualified for the AP calc class and my mom had to campaign the district superintendant to let her take a class at the local community college for credit as they wouldn't teach the AP classdue to lack of students.
Getting to college and having a professor explain math in a consistent, logical manner instead of memorization and drilling was a revelation. On the other hand I had a girlfriend at a Christian college whose calc I class didn't cover integration, so...
Calc 1 isn't supposed to cover integration, that's for calc II...
I do not understand how calculus it taught in the US at all, it does not seem like a very good system at all. Here in 6th form (2nd last year of high school) we had geometry and conic sections and some other stuff, as well as a little unit on calculus that covered basic differentiation and integration for polynomials and touched on exponentials and trig functions, then in 7th form it was about half of the year with the other stuff making up the remainder.
I wouldn't mind a cursory look at calculus, and statistics seems like it would be interesting. I actually find physics and chemistry very interesting too, but neither are easy for me. As much as I like them I just had so much trouble with them. As far as cal and stats goes, well, I wouldn't take if I knew I'd be graded on it, especially if that grade could reflect poorly on me. I shake and freak out and have been asked to leave classrooms before for that reason, but that is just me. That said, many of these 'enrichment' classes might do well without testing. I know plenty of peers who are taking classes just because they are easy, even if they don't find them interesting, or have already taken them. Meanwhile there are classes they want to take but wont because they are worried a low mark will set them back when applying to college and for scholarships. Sometimes by low mark they mean getting B's instead of A's.
There are probably other ways to teach logic and critical thinking aside from advanced math. I liked geometry because it was reason in a way I could understand; that is to say, images. I loved the proofs and I loved that you could demonstrate them with images. For a long time I used drawings to solve algebra; often times I was correct but lost points because it wasn't the method the teacher wanted. I created charts and 'logic trees' and 'scales' to get to the answer. I wouldn't be surprised if other people were like this. Unfortunately this process is longer and often not neat enough to suit expectations/requirements so it isn't taught or even presented as an option. It was however an alternative way of solving problems (I now regret not having written my diy methods down for I have forgotten them) that worked for me where traditional math could not. Some people just don't have the mind for numbers but that doesn't mean we can't solve problems or learn reasoning or logic in other ways.
There's a chance you could have dyscalculia, but I don't know how likely that actually is. A lot of the important stuff in maths was done well before we had the symbolic algebra that we have now, modern algebra only really started in 820AD with the writing of 'The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing'. Even so, most of european maths up until newton and leibniz or so was just catching up on the greeks, they really were pretty dang amazing. Just look at pythagoras' theorem: a^2+b^2=c^2 doesn't just mean these numbers make this when you square them and add them, if you take a triangle and make squares out of each side, the sum of the areas of the small sides' squares is the area of the big side's square.
Calculus is interesting to me in that it has 2 major parts - the algebra and fiddling with symbols, and the understanding of what it all actually means, which gets especially interesting/confusing when you start dealing with multivariable calculus and the gradient is a vector at a right angle to the surface and such. Obviously this is the case with a lot of maths, but I think there is more of a disconnect between the two with calculus and the meaning doesn't follow very obviously from the actual maths.
Calculus is a pretty essential conceptual tool, I think. Everyone should at least understand how position, speed, and acceleration are related through differentiation.
While I'm on the subject, I'm beginning to have a sneaking suspicion that math/science/engineering students emerge from university with a much more well-rounded education than liberal arts majors. My university has a relatively rigorous liberal arts requirement for engineers, consisting of 6 total classes from 3 or more disciplines, 2 of which have to be an upper-level class, in addition to 2 writing seminars.
Liberal arts majors, on the other hand, have to take 2 introductory science OR math courses, and some of them somehow manage to graduate without ever having taken calculus.
shadydentist on
Steam & GT
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
0
Options
Muse Among MenSuburban Bunny Princess?Its time for a new shtick Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
Ahaha, a wiki of dyscalculia brings up a list of symptoms. Maybe! I have a fair number of the symptoms . . . um wow, looking at that list is actually pretty depressing.
Ugh they even mention difficulty with navigation and direction.
Hmm. I hope that isn't it because it paints the sufferer as chronically useless. I hope I can get by with calculators. I really think my biggest hurdle is the stress I face when given a test (I don't know how many times of cried). But is a visually oriented approach to learning and problem solving really that uncommon or inefficient?
Calculus is a pretty essential conceptual tool, I think. Everyone should at least understand how position, speed, and acceleration are related through differentiation.
While I'm on the subject, I'm beginning to have a sneaking suspicion that math/science/engineering students emerge from university with a much more well-rounded education than liberal arts majors. My university has a relatively rigorous liberal arts requirement for engineers, consisting of 6 total classes from 3 or more disciplines, 2 of which have to be an upper-level class, in addition to 2 writing seminars.
Liberal arts majors, on the other hand, have to take 2 introductory science OR math courses, and some of them somehow manage to graduate without ever having taken calculus.
Hahahahaha, in my experience; at least to the engineering part.
In my university, the only liberal arts class engineers were required to take was English 100. Every other major in the university had to at least take two Englishes, but engineering students were exempt, since we also took "technical writing for engineers". After that, every other class we took had direct relation to engineering - even segregating us in "regular" subjects (we took "chemistry for engineers," "physics for engineers," etc). Our schedules were highly regimented and there was just no room for the "other stuff."
It wasn't until I dropped out of engineering and changed my major to compsci that I had room in my schedule (and the degree requirement) to take things like Logic, Economics, a second English class, History/Religious Studies/any liberal arts class ever.
So yeah, engineers from my uni get an incredibly one-track focused education. It's like a five-year, year-round trade school.
Edit: This is the University of Regina in Canada. Please note there is already a 2-year engineering technician track available at the local college, so why uni engineering was so single-minded is beyond me.
Nearly every university I'm aware of in my area runs a college of arts & sciences. This arrangement causes, in my opinion, unnecessary grief for the science majors and liberal art majors alike. I've always wished universities could split A&S and have the pure sciences join the engineering college to form a college of pure and applied science. This in essence would be similar to a tech school but with broader resources and faculties of a university. I don't know little loopy grading exams.
Calculus is a pretty essential conceptual tool, I think. Everyone should at least understand how position, speed, and acceleration are related through differentiation.
While I'm on the subject, I'm beginning to have a sneaking suspicion that math/science/engineering students emerge from university with a much more well-rounded education than liberal arts majors. My university has a relatively rigorous liberal arts requirement for engineers, consisting of 6 total classes from 3 or more disciplines, 2 of which have to be an upper-level class, in addition to 2 writing seminars.
Liberal arts majors, on the other hand, have to take 2 introductory science OR math courses, and some of them somehow manage to graduate without ever having taken calculus.
Says the engineer. As a math/communications/poli sci triple major, I think the idea that "hard science = automatically better education than soft" is a load of phooy propagated by hard science majors. As one of the few hard science/soft science multi-majors, I feel like can comment with an expert opinion. I know plenty of soft science kids who can critical think like crazy, and engineers who couldn't write their way out of a paper bag and can barely remember their name when addressing a group of people. I've got whip-smart engineer friends who crumple when you put them in a room with a rigorous poli sci paper because they can't understand the syntax and structure of proper argumentation. Now, plenty of soft science classes are cake classes, sure, but to say that a hard science education is automatically better or more well-rounded is, as I said, phooy. Soft science classes teach complicated and important skills too. I majored in math, I love calculus, but not everyone needs to learn it. And your specific example of what classes are necessary in what program are specific to your school. Plenty of schools have different requirements.
From my school, engineering students go through a year+ of technical writing courses that encourage proper communication in many mediums to audiences of all levels. This means that we can talk to non-engineers without a bunch of o_O and :? .
Just to address some of the arguments going on in here:
1) It's inappropriate to make a blanket statement about whether engineers get a balanced education or not because universities have a lot of latitude in setting graduation requirements.
2) I think that encouraging students to be hard science or engineering majors is a very short sighted solution. The idea is to get a balanced work force, not to flood with the market with any one type of degree.
3) I agree that trade schools need to be unstigmatized, but as we are now living in a service economy, I think that the type of skills taught in a traditional liberal arts education are useful. Anybody with a liberal arts degree should be able to conduct research, learn independently and be able to write competently.
4) I feel bad for a lot of you, since your teachers appear to be fucking morons. I may not have been a the best student, but I do actually remember just about all the science and math I was taught in high school.
5) It's a little sobering to hear how many of you think that High School should have trade school training as a component. In the least, I think that K-12 education should be focused on giving the students the ability to understand the world they live in. This means a well rounded education, which may include calculus for those with talent in Math, but also means that the students should be familiar with world literature, be able to read science articles in the newspaper, be able to appreciate music etc. I saw a report on some show on PBS about a school in the Bronx which is teaching kids basically how to become office drones. You can learn shit like how to make a spreadsheet anytime, when you're young it's your chance to learn about the world.
At my school the people in the engineering college just took engineering classes.
I would agree with you that the people in the college of arts and sciences at my school had the most well-rounded curriculum. The liberal arts majors had to take real science credits and the hard science people had to take real liberal arts classes.
In the engineering college karate (basically a gym class) counted as a "cultural awareness" core course. In the fine arts college wine tasting and horseback riding counted as science classes.
I realize I may be biased, but I think biology/health is probably the most important subject we could be teaching. And no the health classes we took every other year since 7th grade at my school didn't count. We got lectures on brushing our teeth, puberty and sex ed. I mean things like having every person in this country graduate with a basic understanding of the fact that their body is made up of cells. And that bacteria and viruses are fundamentally different. A basic understanding of how digestion works. Pregnancy would be nice too.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
Calculus is a pretty essential conceptual tool, I think. Everyone should at least understand how position, speed, and acceleration are related through differentiation.
Velocity is the change in position.
Acceleration is the change in velocity.
There. We're done. Magical, no?
Or, wait, do you mean that students need to figure out what in the world (f(x+h)-f(x))/h means? Did you really know what the purpose of that was going to be before you were told?
As far as the Mathematician's lament goes, we HAVE the class that he's looking for. It's a sophomore college level class, discrete math. Teach that for the entirety of elementary school instead of the engineering prep.
Of course, I agree with others who say that all elementary math teachers are useless, so perhaps it's irrelevant. A good teacher could have kids with no knowledge of math on Algebra in three years, easy.
At my school the people in the engineering college just took engineering classes.
I would agree with you that the people in the college of arts and sciences at my school had the most well-rounded curriculum. The liberal arts majors had to take real science credits and the hard science people had to take real liberal arts classes.
In the engineering college karate (basically a gym class) counted as a "cultural awareness" core course. In the fine arts college wine tasting and horseback riding counted as science classes.
I realize I may be biased, but I think biology/health is probably the most important subject we could be teaching. And no the health classes we took every other year since 7th grade at my school didn't count. We got lectures on brushing our teeth, puberty and sex ed. I mean things like having every person in this country graduate with a basic understanding of the fact that their body is made up of cells. And that bacteria and viruses are fundamentally different. A basic understanding of how digestion works. Pregnancy would be nice too.
Those types of things should DEFINITELY be taught on a high school level, unless you think that some high school class serves as a natural prerequisite.
At my school the people in the engineering college just took engineering classes.
I would agree with you that the people in the college of arts and sciences at my school had the most well-rounded curriculum. The liberal arts majors had to take real science credits and the hard science people had to take real liberal arts classes.
In the engineering college karate (basically a gym class) counted as a "cultural awareness" core course. In the fine arts college wine tasting and horseback riding counted as science classes.
I realize I may be biased, but I think biology/health is probably the most important subject we could be teaching. And no the health classes we took every other year since 7th grade at my school didn't count. We got lectures on brushing our teeth, puberty and sex ed. I mean things like having every person in this country graduate with a basic understanding of the fact that their body is made up of cells. And that bacteria and viruses are fundamentally different. A basic understanding of how digestion works. Pregnancy would be nice too.
Those types of things should DEFINITELY be taught on a high school level, unless you think that some high school class serves as a natural prerequisite.
No, I was more responding to the people several pages ago saying that people shouldn't have to take biology and that they thought their high school biology and college 101 classes were worthless and they never used any of the information again. It seems to me, that as living beings, having a basic understanding of biology is a good thing.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
5) It's a little sobering to hear how many of you think that High School should have trade school training as a component. In the least, I think that K-12 education should be focused on giving the students the ability to understand the world they live in. This means a well rounded education, which may include calculus for those with talent in Math, but also means that the students should be familiar with world literature, be able to read science articles in the newspaper, be able to appreciate music etc. I saw a report on some show on PBS about a school in the Bronx which is teaching kids basically how to become office drones. You can learn shit like how to make a spreadsheet anytime, when you're young it's your chance to learn about the world.
How would vocational training in high school, either as an option or as a requirement, conflict with offering a "well-rounded education"? Wouldn't it serve to make said education...um...well-rounded-er?
Why is appreciating music, another thing that kids can do anytime, more valuable than learning basic computer skills? Especially since kids from lower income neighborhoods almost certainly can't or won't learn those skills outside of school before entering the workforce.
5) It's a little sobering to hear how many of you think that High School should have trade school training as a component. In the least, I think that K-12 education should be focused on giving the students the ability to understand the world they live in. This means a well rounded education, which may include calculus for those with talent in Math, but also means that the students should be familiar with world literature, be able to read science articles in the newspaper, be able to appreciate music etc. I saw a report on some show on PBS about a school in the Bronx which is teaching kids basically how to become office drones. You can learn shit like how to make a spreadsheet anytime, when you're young it's your chance to learn about the world.
How would vocational training in high school, either as an option or as a requirement, conflict with offering a "well-rounded education"? Wouldn't it serve to make said education...um...well-rounded-er?
Why is appreciating music, another thing that kids can do anytime, more valuable than learning basic computer skills? Especially since kids from lower income neighborhoods almost certainly can't or won't learn those skills outside of school before entering the workforce.
I strongly disagree with your sentiments regarding music. Just about everybody I know that has some level of musical appreciation, and by this I mean music itself, can play an instrument and has listened to a wide variety of music from a young age. Learning basic computer skills? That might be fine for elementary school. I'd expect computer classes in Middle and High School to have a focus on learning programming languages and electrical design of a computer, not how to make graphs in Excel. If you want to learn Excel, it better be part of a business program that is teaching the students how to do bookkeeping.
CygnusZ on
0
Options
Muse Among MenSuburban Bunny Princess?Its time for a new shtick Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
Ha, all my computer classes included Excel as a requirement. That said, I come from a low-income community; many kids don't have computers so what they learned in school (what we would consider to be very basic) was brand new for them and as such, very useful.
5) It's a little sobering to hear how many of you think that High School should have trade school training as a component. In the least, I think that K-12 education should be focused on giving the students the ability to understand the world they live in. This means a well rounded education, which may include calculus for those with talent in Math, but also means that the students should be familiar with world literature, be able to read science articles in the newspaper, be able to appreciate music etc. I saw a report on some show on PBS about a school in the Bronx which is teaching kids basically how to become office drones. You can learn shit like how to make a spreadsheet anytime, when you're young it's your chance to learn about the world.
How would vocational training in high school, either as an option or as a requirement, conflict with offering a "well-rounded education"? Wouldn't it serve to make said education...um...well-rounded-er?
Why is appreciating music, another thing that kids can do anytime, more valuable than learning basic computer skills? Especially since kids from lower income neighborhoods almost certainly can't or won't learn those skills outside of school before entering the workforce.
I strongly disagree with your sentiments regarding music. Just about everybody I know that has some level of musical appreciation, and by this I mean music itself, can play an instrument and has listened to a wide variety of music from a young age. Learning basic computer skills? That might be fine for elementary school. I'd expect computer classes in Middle and High School to have a focus on learning programming languages and electrical design of a computer, not how to make graphs in Excel. If you want to learn Excel, it better be part of a business program that is teaching the students how to do bookkeeping.
I agree that basic computer classes should start in elementary school and not middle/high school, but I really don't see the downside to teaching lower-income students how to use the computer programs they're going to need to know how to use in order to land anything close to a decent job.
I'm certainly not against teaching music appreciation in all levels of public school. I certainly don't think that music appreciation is inherently better or worse than vocational training. Ideally, schools should offer a wide variety of curriculum tracks based on the interests and aptitudes of students, rather than a one size fits all approach.
There's a whole lot of implicit bias behind what people think a "real" education should entail. Almost always the subjects that people consider to be part of a "real" education are those subjects they themselves have an aptitude for.
Wow, hearing about some of the really poor liberal arts requirements at some schools gave me a sad. At the school I currently work at as an advisor, (no engineering degrees included) we have some pretty stringent requirements.
Picking a bachelor degree at random, we're looking at 39 credits (of 120) of liberal arts requirements; 9 credits in communications (english composition, for example), 9 credits in the social sciences, 9 credits in the humanities, 6 credits of hard science, 6 credits of mathematics. 12 credits of that must be upper division. The total credit amounts for liberal arts vary from 36 to 42 credits depending on program, but they all require 12 credits at the upper division.
I just can't imagine taking a BA or BS degree program that only required a tiny handful of liberal arts coursework, and that don't require any hard science or mathematics. What the heck is the point of skipping those subjects? And, more to the point, who in god's name decided that 'Technical Writing' should count for English Composition for that one student above me?
But is a visually oriented approach to learning and problem solving really that uncommon or inefficient?
In some cases it may be a lot worse, but in many cases it's just as good if not better, but it's harder to teach and assess so it's generally ignored in education. The point I was trying to make before is that's how a lot of really important maths was done before about 1000 years ago.
Here (new zealand) there are absolutely no requirements to do subjects outside of your major, which I originally really liked but now I'm not so sure about it, I barely have space in my schedule to fit in anything else (although I guess I am filling it up with maths that isn't really necessary, but is helpful for a physics major) and I can't put an extra year in because I'm trying to get into honours and you have to do that in 4 years. Bah. Well, 3 year undergrad is nice too I guess.
But is a visually oriented approach to learning and problem solving really that uncommon or inefficient?
In some cases it may be a lot worse, but in many cases it's just as good if not better, but it's harder to teach and assess so it's generally ignored in education. The point I was trying to make before is that's how a lot of really important maths was done before about 1000 years ago.
Here (new zealand) there are absolutely no requirements to do subjects outside of your major, which I originally really liked but now I'm not so sure about it, I barely have space in my schedule to fit in anything else (although I guess I am filling it up with maths that isn't really necessary, but is helpful for a physics major) and I can't put an extra year in because I'm trying to get into honours and you have to do that in 4 years. Bah. Well, 3 year undergrad is nice too I guess.
I have similar thinking on that but my issues were based more on some of the specific courses I had to take as an Accounting Major. At first I had alot of difficulty seeing the importance of courses that weren't directly related to my career aspirations as we have a requirement to take many non accounting business courses. While I still don't put nearly as much effort into these courses, during the last year I am starting to see their importance and am thankful that my degree has those requirements (well minus the required java programming course).
If I had to design a curriculum for high school, I would teach the following:
Algebra
Statistics
Personal Finance
Time Management
Basic Cellular Biology
Human Anatomy
Nutrition
Job Hunting
Computer Basics
Internet Basics
Economics
Scientific Method
Interpersonal Interaction
Public Speaking
Public Policy
Oh, also some form of art appreciation, such as music, paintings, etc.
English?
I was hoping they would teach that in middle school. :P
But yeah, you can add some form of Writing to the list. Maybe English Composition or something.
OR, it can be integrated into the other classes somehow.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
MorgensternICH BIN DER PESTVOGELDU KAMPFAFFE!Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
History and Phys Ed. seem to be out as well.
Morgenstern on
“Every time we walk along a beach some ancient urge disturbs us so that we find ourselves shedding shoes and garments or scavenging among seaweed and whitened timbers like the homesick refugees of a long war.” - Loren Eiseley
If I had to design a curriculum for high school, I would teach the following:
Algebra
Statistics
Personal Finance
Time Management
Basic Cellular Biology
Human Anatomy
Nutrition
Job Hunting
Computer Basics
Internet Basics
Economics
Scientific Method
Interpersonal Interaction
Public Speaking
Public Policy
Oh, also some form of art appreciation, such as music, paintings, etc.
English?
I was hoping they would teach that in middle school. :P
But yeah, you can add some form of Writing to the list. Maybe English Composition or something.
OR, it can be integrated into the other classes somehow.
If anything, we should be teaching students the bare minimum basics of research, proper citation and avoiding plagiarism. I can't tell you how many students we see dropping or failing out of English Composition the first time they take it because they have no idea that what they've been doing in high school for years is actually pure plagiarism.
For history I think we should only teach our own history, and if they are interested they can go learn other histories on their own.
Ancient history seems pretty useless in the grand scheme of things - I think we teach it only because we have an abundance of history teachers, not because it serves some practical purpose. :P
edit: for physical ed, it really depends on how we teach it. most phys ed classes i see are fucking awful. it seems instructors either let the kids play whatever sport is their favorite, or do retarded shit like stretching and light jogging (which is meaningless for kids that age).
For history I think we should only teach our own history, and if they are interested they can go learn other histories on their own.
Ancient history seems pretty useless in the grand scheme of things - I think we teach it only because we have an abundance of history teachers, not because it serves some practical purpose. :P
I'm not sure that having a more narrow world view then most people already have would be beneficial to society. A law course would be good to so that people understand the basics of the rules in regards to the society they live in. That could go into part of the Public Policy one you mentioned.
Job Hunting I defiantly agree with. Most students have no idea how to write a cover letter or resume. If not in high school there should be some job search requirements in higher education. You spend 3+ years learning the skills for a job but no time on learning how to find a job. I know there are resources provided for students in regards to this but let's be honest the majority of students think someone is going to show up at their house when they graduate and offer them a job so at best they don't start working on this skills until close to or after graduation.
For history I think we should only teach our own history, and if they are interested they can go learn other histories on their own.
Ancient history seems pretty useless in the grand scheme of things - I think we teach it only because we have an abundance of history teachers, not because it serves some practical purpose. :P
edit: for physical ed, it really depends on how we teach it. most phys ed classes i see are fucking awful. it seems instructors either let the kids play whatever sport is their favorite, or do retarded shit like stretching and light jogging (which is meaningless for kids that age).
I would go in the complete opposite direction. If there were to be only one history class, it should be World History Ancient - Present. I don't see at all why the subject should be taught from an American perspective.
For history I think we should only teach our own history, and if they are interested they can go learn other histories on their own.
Ancient history seems pretty useless in the grand scheme of things - I think we teach it only because we have an abundance of history teachers, not because it serves some practical purpose. :P
edit: for physical ed, it really depends on how we teach it. most phys ed classes i see are fucking awful. it seems instructors either let the kids play whatever sport is their favorite, or do retarded shit like stretching and light jogging (which is meaningless for kids that age).
I would go in the complete opposite direction. If there were to be only one history class, it should be World History Ancient - Present. I don't see at all why the subject should be taught from an American perspective.
American history should, of course, be taught from an American perspective.
The reason I think we should leave it at that is that it is the most immediately relevant type of history. It comes up in everything, from law, to public policy, to political debates.
History of Egypt? Not so much. It is still important, but not important enough to hammer names and dates into people's heads. "What year was the first unified kingdom in Egypt was founded, and by whom." Who the hell cares, honestly?
For history I think we should only teach our own history, and if they are interested they can go learn other histories on their own.
Ancient history seems pretty useless in the grand scheme of things - I think we teach it only because we have an abundance of history teachers, not because it serves some practical purpose. :P
edit: for physical ed, it really depends on how we teach it. most phys ed classes i see are fucking awful. it seems instructors either let the kids play whatever sport is their favorite, or do retarded shit like stretching and light jogging (which is meaningless for kids that age).
I would go in the complete opposite direction. If there were to be only one history class, it should be World History Ancient - Present. I don't see at all why the subject should be taught from an American perspective.
World History should be taught to children. They shuffle through it so quickly in grades 1-8 or so anyway that they can only ever cover very broad topics. American History should be taught to adults who can learn a thing or two about how our country was actually formed, instead of the sort of Disney-ish one they start selling to 6 year olds as it is now.
For history I think we should only teach our own history, and if they are interested they can go learn other histories on their own.
Ancient history seems pretty useless in the grand scheme of things - I think we teach it only because we have an abundance of history teachers, not because it serves some practical purpose. :P
edit: for physical ed, it really depends on how we teach it. most phys ed classes i see are fucking awful. it seems instructors either let the kids play whatever sport is their favorite, or do retarded shit like stretching and light jogging (which is meaningless for kids that age).
I would go in the complete opposite direction. If there were to be only one history class, it should be World History Ancient - Present. I don't see at all why the subject should be taught from an American perspective.
American history should, of course, be taught from an American perspective.
The reason I think we should leave it at that is that it is the most immediately relevant type of history. It comes up in everything, from law, to public policy, to political debates.
History of Egypt? Not so much. It is still important, but not important enough to hammer names and dates into people's heads. "What year was the first unified kingdom in Egypt was founded, and by whom." Who the hell cares, honestly?
Fortunately that isn't the way world history is taught past fifth grade or so.
edit: I also don't see why american history should be taught from an "american perspective," or for that matter what that even means.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Ancient history broadens one's worldview and enables the learner to understand how societies develop and change over time. Education isn't just about learning facts and skills, it's about developing an understanding of the world.
Really, that list seems to be aiming toward making future science majors with some life skills thrown in. For kids who are interested in literature, the humanities, social sciences, and what have you I can't help but think they'd be bored to tears. There also seems to be no shop/vocational classes offered.
A good high school curriculum would teach the basics and have a healthy choice of electives for the student to choose from.
Posts
Calc 1 isn't supposed to cover integration, that's for calc II...
There are probably other ways to teach logic and critical thinking aside from advanced math. I liked geometry because it was reason in a way I could understand; that is to say, images. I loved the proofs and I loved that you could demonstrate them with images. For a long time I used drawings to solve algebra; often times I was correct but lost points because it wasn't the method the teacher wanted. I created charts and 'logic trees' and 'scales' to get to the answer. I wouldn't be surprised if other people were like this. Unfortunately this process is longer and often not neat enough to suit expectations/requirements so it isn't taught or even presented as an option. It was however an alternative way of solving problems (I now regret not having written my diy methods down for I have forgotten them) that worked for me where traditional math could not. Some people just don't have the mind for numbers but that doesn't mean we can't solve problems or learn reasoning or logic in other ways.
People mention foreign language . . . I don't know if it should be required. It just seems like it's own reward. I have trouble understanding why people don't take more of it! It is so nice to realize you can google something in another language when you aren't getting any results in English
Finance, civics, law, and economics I all agree should be learned. I know Econ is required at my school and civics and law might be covered in APUSGov but I don't know . . . so even if they are they would be elective for those who choose to take the AP class. Talking to see some seniors it seems that basic finance is part of a project they must do.
Nutrition/health was drilled into us since elementary. We have been required to take a health/nut. class in jr.high and highschool. It seems that isn't the case with many here?
Yahtzee! We need to raise the bar above knee level.
But the algebra involved in solving calculus problems would be a barrier, if you have trouble with that.
I like that "mathematician's Lament" though, and I like his idea for teaching math in the same way we teach art. I find myself having to use artistic skills much more often in my daily life than advanced math.
A lot of industries did OJT that worked. I work with a Perfusionist who learned on the job. Lots of jobs that were once something you could get to if you worked hard and applied yourself for apprentice and/or showed aptitude for are basically out of reach unless you go to school.
The sad thing is, the people pushing for these schools and licenses are a good portion of the people who never had to go to them.
Do you really need to go to school for 3 years to learn HVAC and how to use a drill and make measurements? Not unless you're retarded. But it's required anyway at this point. Meaning that working hard ends out being pretty useless.
I get that I'm probably bitter and jaded on the whole thing. I dropped out of high school and started working when I was 16. I haven't stopped since, and though I'm now approaching the age of 30 I still haven't been in a situation where I could pay my rent, eat, and go to school.
Without mid-level semi-skilled jobs or on the job training, you're fucked and stuck to a minimum wage job that is probably part time. If you even mention you're thinking about attending school, you may as well quit because your hours will vanish.
edit:
I get that I may never be a rocket scientist or surgeon. I'm okay with that. All I want is a fair shake at an opportunity to make money if I work hard. I've been trying to find a job in another state, in several in fact... where living is cheaper. Jobs I'm easily qualified for, I have plenty of references on my resume including glowing letters of recommendation from dozens of people including the director.
Doesn't matter, I don't know anyone. Knowing someone is literally the only way to get a job at this point. All those postings on that company website? Yeah, some assholes brother or cousin will get those.
edit2: I'm also sick and tired of people telling me to "just try real hard, go to school what's the big deal, <I/we> managed to do it!" Yeah 20 years ago, with your parents help and lower tuition costs. I'm already close to living on rice and beans, my hours vary so much I can't do anything about it. Even were school completely paid for, rent and food and bills require I am always available to take whatever I can get.
"Stop being so negative!"
"Try starving or being evicted then, silly goose!"
I do not understand how calculus it taught in the US at all, it does not seem like a very good system at all. Here in 6th form (2nd last year of high school) we had geometry and conic sections and some other stuff, as well as a little unit on calculus that covered basic differentiation and integration for polynomials and touched on exponentials and trig functions, then in 7th form it was about half of the year with the other stuff making up the remainder.
There's a chance you could have dyscalculia, but I don't know how likely that actually is. A lot of the important stuff in maths was done well before we had the symbolic algebra that we have now, modern algebra only really started in 820AD with the writing of 'The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing'. Even so, most of european maths up until newton and leibniz or so was just catching up on the greeks, they really were pretty dang amazing. Just look at pythagoras' theorem: a^2+b^2=c^2 doesn't just mean these numbers make this when you square them and add them, if you take a triangle and make squares out of each side, the sum of the areas of the small sides' squares is the area of the big side's square.
Calculus is interesting to me in that it has 2 major parts - the algebra and fiddling with symbols, and the understanding of what it all actually means, which gets especially interesting/confusing when you start dealing with multivariable calculus and the gradient is a vector at a right angle to the surface and such. Obviously this is the case with a lot of maths, but I think there is more of a disconnect between the two with calculus and the meaning doesn't follow very obviously from the actual maths.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
While I'm on the subject, I'm beginning to have a sneaking suspicion that math/science/engineering students emerge from university with a much more well-rounded education than liberal arts majors. My university has a relatively rigorous liberal arts requirement for engineers, consisting of 6 total classes from 3 or more disciplines, 2 of which have to be an upper-level class, in addition to 2 writing seminars.
Liberal arts majors, on the other hand, have to take 2 introductory science OR math courses, and some of them somehow manage to graduate without ever having taken calculus.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Ugh they even mention difficulty with navigation and direction.
Hmm. I hope that isn't it because it paints the sufferer as chronically useless. I hope I can get by with calculators. I really think my biggest hurdle is the stress I face when given a test (I don't know how many times of cried). But is a visually oriented approach to learning and problem solving really that uncommon or inefficient?
Hahahahaha, in my experience; at least to the engineering part.
In my university, the only liberal arts class engineers were required to take was English 100. Every other major in the university had to at least take two Englishes, but engineering students were exempt, since we also took "technical writing for engineers". After that, every other class we took had direct relation to engineering - even segregating us in "regular" subjects (we took "chemistry for engineers," "physics for engineers," etc). Our schedules were highly regimented and there was just no room for the "other stuff."
It wasn't until I dropped out of engineering and changed my major to compsci that I had room in my schedule (and the degree requirement) to take things like Logic, Economics, a second English class, History/Religious Studies/any liberal arts class ever.
So yeah, engineers from my uni get an incredibly one-track focused education. It's like a five-year, year-round trade school.
Edit: This is the University of Regina in Canada. Please note there is already a 2-year engineering technician track available at the local college, so why uni engineering was so single-minded is beyond me.
Says the engineer. As a math/communications/poli sci triple major, I think the idea that "hard science = automatically better education than soft" is a load of phooy propagated by hard science majors. As one of the few hard science/soft science multi-majors, I feel like can comment with an expert opinion. I know plenty of soft science kids who can critical think like crazy, and engineers who couldn't write their way out of a paper bag and can barely remember their name when addressing a group of people. I've got whip-smart engineer friends who crumple when you put them in a room with a rigorous poli sci paper because they can't understand the syntax and structure of proper argumentation. Now, plenty of soft science classes are cake classes, sure, but to say that a hard science education is automatically better or more well-rounded is, as I said, phooy. Soft science classes teach complicated and important skills too. I majored in math, I love calculus, but not everyone needs to learn it. And your specific example of what classes are necessary in what program are specific to your school. Plenty of schools have different requirements.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
1) It's inappropriate to make a blanket statement about whether engineers get a balanced education or not because universities have a lot of latitude in setting graduation requirements.
2) I think that encouraging students to be hard science or engineering majors is a very short sighted solution. The idea is to get a balanced work force, not to flood with the market with any one type of degree.
3) I agree that trade schools need to be unstigmatized, but as we are now living in a service economy, I think that the type of skills taught in a traditional liberal arts education are useful. Anybody with a liberal arts degree should be able to conduct research, learn independently and be able to write competently.
4) I feel bad for a lot of you, since your teachers appear to be fucking morons. I may not have been a the best student, but I do actually remember just about all the science and math I was taught in high school.
5) It's a little sobering to hear how many of you think that High School should have trade school training as a component. In the least, I think that K-12 education should be focused on giving the students the ability to understand the world they live in. This means a well rounded education, which may include calculus for those with talent in Math, but also means that the students should be familiar with world literature, be able to read science articles in the newspaper, be able to appreciate music etc. I saw a report on some show on PBS about a school in the Bronx which is teaching kids basically how to become office drones. You can learn shit like how to make a spreadsheet anytime, when you're young it's your chance to learn about the world.
I would agree with you that the people in the college of arts and sciences at my school had the most well-rounded curriculum. The liberal arts majors had to take real science credits and the hard science people had to take real liberal arts classes.
In the engineering college karate (basically a gym class) counted as a "cultural awareness" core course. In the fine arts college wine tasting and horseback riding counted as science classes.
I realize I may be biased, but I think biology/health is probably the most important subject we could be teaching. And no the health classes we took every other year since 7th grade at my school didn't count. We got lectures on brushing our teeth, puberty and sex ed. I mean things like having every person in this country graduate with a basic understanding of the fact that their body is made up of cells. And that bacteria and viruses are fundamentally different. A basic understanding of how digestion works. Pregnancy would be nice too.
Velocity is the change in position.
Acceleration is the change in velocity.
There. We're done. Magical, no?
Or, wait, do you mean that students need to figure out what in the world (f(x+h)-f(x))/h means? Did you really know what the purpose of that was going to be before you were told?
As far as the Mathematician's lament goes, we HAVE the class that he's looking for. It's a sophomore college level class, discrete math. Teach that for the entirety of elementary school instead of the engineering prep.
Of course, I agree with others who say that all elementary math teachers are useless, so perhaps it's irrelevant. A good teacher could have kids with no knowledge of math on Algebra in three years, easy.
Those types of things should DEFINITELY be taught on a high school level, unless you think that some high school class serves as a natural prerequisite.
No, I was more responding to the people several pages ago saying that people shouldn't have to take biology and that they thought their high school biology and college 101 classes were worthless and they never used any of the information again. It seems to me, that as living beings, having a basic understanding of biology is a good thing.
How would vocational training in high school, either as an option or as a requirement, conflict with offering a "well-rounded education"? Wouldn't it serve to make said education...um...well-rounded-er?
Why is appreciating music, another thing that kids can do anytime, more valuable than learning basic computer skills? Especially since kids from lower income neighborhoods almost certainly can't or won't learn those skills outside of school before entering the workforce.
I strongly disagree with your sentiments regarding music. Just about everybody I know that has some level of musical appreciation, and by this I mean music itself, can play an instrument and has listened to a wide variety of music from a young age. Learning basic computer skills? That might be fine for elementary school. I'd expect computer classes in Middle and High School to have a focus on learning programming languages and electrical design of a computer, not how to make graphs in Excel. If you want to learn Excel, it better be part of a business program that is teaching the students how to do bookkeeping.
I agree that basic computer classes should start in elementary school and not middle/high school, but I really don't see the downside to teaching lower-income students how to use the computer programs they're going to need to know how to use in order to land anything close to a decent job.
I'm certainly not against teaching music appreciation in all levels of public school. I certainly don't think that music appreciation is inherently better or worse than vocational training. Ideally, schools should offer a wide variety of curriculum tracks based on the interests and aptitudes of students, rather than a one size fits all approach.
There's a whole lot of implicit bias behind what people think a "real" education should entail. Almost always the subjects that people consider to be part of a "real" education are those subjects they themselves have an aptitude for.
Oh, also some form of art appreciation, such as music, paintings, etc.
Picking a bachelor degree at random, we're looking at 39 credits (of 120) of liberal arts requirements; 9 credits in communications (english composition, for example), 9 credits in the social sciences, 9 credits in the humanities, 6 credits of hard science, 6 credits of mathematics. 12 credits of that must be upper division. The total credit amounts for liberal arts vary from 36 to 42 credits depending on program, but they all require 12 credits at the upper division.
I just can't imagine taking a BA or BS degree program that only required a tiny handful of liberal arts coursework, and that don't require any hard science or mathematics. What the heck is the point of skipping those subjects? And, more to the point, who in god's name decided that 'Technical Writing' should count for English Composition for that one student above me?
In some cases it may be a lot worse, but in many cases it's just as good if not better, but it's harder to teach and assess so it's generally ignored in education. The point I was trying to make before is that's how a lot of really important maths was done before about 1000 years ago.
Here (new zealand) there are absolutely no requirements to do subjects outside of your major, which I originally really liked but now I'm not so sure about it, I barely have space in my schedule to fit in anything else (although I guess I am filling it up with maths that isn't really necessary, but is helpful for a physics major) and I can't put an extra year in because I'm trying to get into honours and you have to do that in 4 years. Bah. Well, 3 year undergrad is nice too I guess.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
English?
I have similar thinking on that but my issues were based more on some of the specific courses I had to take as an Accounting Major. At first I had alot of difficulty seeing the importance of courses that weren't directly related to my career aspirations as we have a requirement to take many non accounting business courses. While I still don't put nearly as much effort into these courses, during the last year I am starting to see their importance and am thankful that my degree has those requirements (well minus the required java programming course).
I was hoping they would teach that in middle school. :P
But yeah, you can add some form of Writing to the list. Maybe English Composition or something.
OR, it can be integrated into the other classes somehow.
If anything, we should be teaching students the bare minimum basics of research, proper citation and avoiding plagiarism. I can't tell you how many students we see dropping or failing out of English Composition the first time they take it because they have no idea that what they've been doing in high school for years is actually pure plagiarism.
For history I think we should only teach our own history, and if they are interested they can go learn other histories on their own.
Ancient history seems pretty useless in the grand scheme of things - I think we teach it only because we have an abundance of history teachers, not because it serves some practical purpose. :P
edit: for physical ed, it really depends on how we teach it. most phys ed classes i see are fucking awful. it seems instructors either let the kids play whatever sport is their favorite, or do retarded shit like stretching and light jogging (which is meaningless for kids that age).
I'm not sure that having a more narrow world view then most people already have would be beneficial to society. A law course would be good to so that people understand the basics of the rules in regards to the society they live in. That could go into part of the Public Policy one you mentioned.
Job Hunting I defiantly agree with. Most students have no idea how to write a cover letter or resume. If not in high school there should be some job search requirements in higher education. You spend 3+ years learning the skills for a job but no time on learning how to find a job. I know there are resources provided for students in regards to this but let's be honest the majority of students think someone is going to show up at their house when they graduate and offer them a job so at best they don't start working on this skills until close to or after graduation.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I would go in the complete opposite direction. If there were to be only one history class, it should be World History Ancient - Present. I don't see at all why the subject should be taught from an American perspective.
American history should, of course, be taught from an American perspective.
The reason I think we should leave it at that is that it is the most immediately relevant type of history. It comes up in everything, from law, to public policy, to political debates.
History of Egypt? Not so much. It is still important, but not important enough to hammer names and dates into people's heads. "What year was the first unified kingdom in Egypt was founded, and by whom." Who the hell cares, honestly?
World History should be taught to children. They shuffle through it so quickly in grades 1-8 or so anyway that they can only ever cover very broad topics. American History should be taught to adults who can learn a thing or two about how our country was actually formed, instead of the sort of Disney-ish one they start selling to 6 year olds as it is now.
Fortunately that isn't the way world history is taught past fifth grade or so.
edit: I also don't see why american history should be taught from an "american perspective," or for that matter what that even means.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Really, that list seems to be aiming toward making future science majors with some life skills thrown in. For kids who are interested in literature, the humanities, social sciences, and what have you I can't help but think they'd be bored to tears. There also seems to be no shop/vocational classes offered.
A good high school curriculum would teach the basics and have a healthy choice of electives for the student to choose from.