Tefhel Wrote:Haha this thread sounds exactly like me at 15. "Ugh I hate school, school sucks, why do I have to study things I don't enjoy!"

But I'm at university now and I love it. There is, however, still a sizeable contingent of people who like to moan about 'the system'. I think it's a personality thing. No doubt the same people who will moan about their company in 5 years time, and will be moaning about the government in 20 years time, and will be moaning about those 'evil nurses who are trying to kill me' in 60 years time!

See, that's how I thought it was going to be for me, too. I was excited to go to college where I could learn about things that were actually interesting to me. I ended up being disappointed, but I'm glad your experience has been the opposite.

vix86 Wrote:Your mother was beaten because the guy could be paid less to do the same job; more than likely.

Heh, you're probably right.

vix86 Wrote:One of the things I love about college is that your teachers know their field so well, which is something my high school teachers didn't necessarily fit. Try asking your professors some time what they did their doctoral dissertation on, or what their current research is about (if you are at a university/research college). Ask questions about it, what kind of importance there is to it, why it interests them. If you legitimately enjoy learning, this is one of the most interesting things to do and you are bound to learn something interesting.

This is one of the few things I enjoyed about my time at college. Most of the professors at my university are way overqualified and could be making a lot more money elsewhere, but for whatever reason choose to stay. I definitely had some interesting conversations while I was there.

LivingNexus Wrote:See, that's how I thought it was going to be for me, too. I was excited to go to college where I could learn about things that were actually interesting to me. I ended up being disappointed, but I'm glad your experience has been the opposite.

Thank you. I think it is really unfortunate that some people end up not enjoying themselves or coming to hate their subjects.

nadiatims Wrote:There are plenty of 16 year olds that could/would/should be getting paid more than their teachers in high school but instead they're encouraged to stay in school learning things as vitally important as shakespeare. I suspect the education system is one of the most deeply ingrained of the parasitic institutions in existence and will be the hardest to kill.

O_O So we should destroy the education system? But how will people learn about evolution?

This is a bad idea, we need more education, not less. And studying Shakespeare can actually teach you a thing or two.


@LivingNexus I can understand that college has disappointed you, but you've just got to make the best out of it.

Eikyu Wrote:

nadiatims Wrote:There are plenty of 16 year olds that could/would/should be getting paid more than their teachers in high school but instead they're encouraged to stay in school learning things as vitally important as shakespeare. I suspect the education system is one of the most deeply ingrained of the parasitic institutions in existence and will be the hardest to kill.

O_O So we should destroy the education system? But how will people learn about evolution?

This is a bad idea, we need more education, not less. And studying Shakespeare can actually teach you a thing or two.


@LivingNexus I can understand that college has disappointed you, but you've just got to make the best out of it.

The problem is education inflation. It's not too bad in australia, but there are places in europe that won't consider you for a position without a masters/PhD. University used to be for people who needed university. Now that *everyone* is being pushed to go to university, degrees are being used to sift through job applicants, even if the degree is irrelevant. You need a bachelors for flipping burgers at mcdonalds and a PhD to do a job that 50 years ago would have only required a bachelors. That's an exaggeration, but the inflation that has occurred is real. And it's all 1) a giant waste of money, 2) a waste of several years of people's lives, 3) unfair to those who don't meet the requirements for a PhD, but are perfectly capable of doing the job.

The fact is that most jobs don't require a university degree (although they will probably require specialised training in that field, eg plumber etc) and even jobs that do require a university degree shouldn't be taking the PhD over the bachelor unless there's actually some evidence that the former will actually be better at the job. PhDs are usually very specialised things, and unless their topic lines up exactly with what you need them to do, they're likely not going to be able to do the job any better than someone who's got general knowledge (from a bachelors) and on-the-job training.

And you know what? Forcing everyone to study shakespeare *is* a waste of time. There's no great insights in there. His plays were the hollywood movies of their times. Are they historically significant, sure. Would i rather kids in HS be taught more statistics and civics (ie, how their society actually f-ing works, or is supposed to), you bet. There is so much that schools don't teach. A large fraction of the population is ignorant as to how the world around them works. And you think spending a term reading a 500 year old play is a productive use of time?

[Zgarbas]

Back in my day getting yerself cultured was what school was for. Don't get more culture than Shakespeare.

Back in the day, being cultured was also important for class mobility. It's not as important now.

zigmonty Wrote:The problem is education inflation. It's not too bad in australia, but there are places in europe that won't consider you for a position without a masters/PhD.

That's because of competition. You can't really help it in a free market.

zigmonty Wrote:And you know what? Forcing everyone to study shakespeare *is* a waste of time. There's no great insights in there. His plays were the hollywood movies of their times. Are they historically significant, sure. Would i rather kids in HS be taught more statistics and civics (ie, how their society actually f-ing works, or is supposed to), you bet. There is so much that schools don't teach. A large fraction of the population is ignorant as to how the world around them works. And you think spending a term reading a 500 year old play is a productive use of time?

I think that Shakespeare is a bit better than your average Hollywood movie. I would say that there are great insights in there on human nature and psychology. "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players..." But the value of studying Shakespeare is mostly in just thinking about his plays and asking yourself questions about them. I think doing that can make you smarter.

other reasons:http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/whystudyshakespeare.html

But yes, kids could also be taught other things about the world, though that might not be as exciting as studying Shakespeare.

Zgarbas Wrote:Back in my day getting yerself cultured was what school was for. Don't get more culture than Shakespeare.

LOL how is shakespeare culture? Because you defined it as such? It's a historical curiosity at best. Face it: shakespeare is culture because it's fashionable to call it culture. If you dis shakespeare, then you must be an uncultured ignoramus. Your opinion no longer matters. The only valid opinions are that it's "too hard" or that you "didn't understand it" not that "half of his plays are frankly pretty damn boring". Noo... can't say that.

Don't get me wrong, i *enjoyed* studying shakespeare in school. He was clearly a clever writer, and his works stand out amongst his contemporaries. But as part of a compulsory education system? When most of my peers couldn't give an accurate list of causes leading up to WWII (that weren't regurgitated WWII-era propaganda)? Historical fictional plays are more important than actual history? To say nothing of the fact that most people's understanding of how a computer or TV works is "... magic?".

Literature wanks have way too much influence on school curriculums. They've inflicted their pet hobby on generations of school children and gotten away with it.

I see literature as much more than a pet hobby. It can give you a perspective on things, make you see how others live their lives. It can change the way you view the world and make you think, more than a videogame or a movie. And we know how important reading books is when you study a language. Reading books in Japanese really helped me understand the language.

zigmonty Wrote:And you know what? Forcing everyone to study shakespeare *is* a waste of time. There's no great insights in there. His plays were the hollywood movies of their times. Are they historically significant, sure.

Et tu, zigmonty?

zigmonty Wrote:Are they historically significant, sure. Would i rather kids in HS be taught more statistics and civics (ie, how their society actually f-ing works, or is supposed to), you bet. There is so much that schools don't teach. A large fraction of the population is ignorant as to how the world around them works. And you think spending a term reading a 500 year old play is a productive use of time?

There are more things in heaven and earth, zigmonty, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Anyway, we all know that WWII started because kids weren't reading enough Shakespeare.

Eikyu Wrote:It can change the way you view the world and make you think, more than a videogame or a movie.

I disagree. There's a lot of things about movies that can make you think. Camera technique alone can do so much.

I think literature is important for literacy and for communicating in written form, but past that, studying poems, plays, novels and fiction well into high school seems does seem a little bit unnecessary. For me, critical reading techniques of nonfiction were not taught in English but in History, which I view as much more important in the functioning of society (not just practically, but spiritually as well) as opposed to iambic pentameter and onomatopoeia.

[Zgarbas]

So basically your problem is that kids learn something which is impractical instead of learning other impractical things which you personally find useful?
Cause electronics is for electricians, and I doubt history ever fit in the "useful knowledge" category.

I say abolish mathematics, I'll never use complex numbers in real life, then.

I agree, we should abolish complex numbers, abolish Shakespeare - I wonder what's going to be proposed next. And after we agree on the cuts, we will take a look back and say what? Let me hypothesize that most will say "I don't want to live with people of such low standards." Back to the square one, I guess.

In Australia, complex numbers are only taught in high school if you take extension maths (at least where i'm from). They are a perfect example of esoteric knowledge that most of the population *does not need to know*. I learned them; i need to know them. I'm not sure why a doctor would need to know them. Or a lawyer. Frankly, even as someone who does need to know them, they're not particularly interesting. Just a tool that's helpful for visualising certain problems. The average person should be taught them as much as they should be taught air conditioner repair.

Keep in mind i'm talking about what is taught as part of compulsory education here. If you want to learn about complex numbers or shakespeare, and it's not your field, buy a book or look it up on wikipedia. We live in the 21st century, information is not hard to find. The idea that compulsory education is the only education that people ever undertake is appalling. Let's be clear here: we're talking about forcing people to watch government mandated lectures. All i'm saying is that we should at least reevaluate whether what's being taught is worth it (education is not cheap). A certain set of subjects has been enshrined as essential since the 1800s, with little debate. Hell, ditching half the maths curriculum and teaching logic instead wouldn't be the dumbest idea. Compulsory education should consist of the set of subjects that we think are required to function in society. That's not to say it's a small set. I think especially now people need a pretty comprehensive education to be functional members of society. But it's hard to argue how either Shakespeare or complex numbers fit into this without resorting to intangibles like "but but... culture!".

History is different. Taught right, it's a series of past mistakes to be avoided, with all the complexities of real life. It's important that people, as the ones who ultimately hold power in a society, understand how groups like the Nazis came to power. Why the start of WWII wasn't a case of "Japan is evil!" (in particular, the games the US was playing at the time). Fiction isn't in the same league, regardless of how well written it is. Actually, if you want fiction, dystopian novels are probably better. A well-written description of a possible future can be great for provoking discussion. Probably why brave new world and blade runner were on the study list at my school.

I remember being utterly appalled at science teaching at school. It was a boring bunch of facts and i could see my peers tuning out. It totally missed the point. Teaching a bunch of facts that will be forgotten without review is useless (come on, this is an SRS crowd). We had one substitute teacher one day, and he was playing with a bouncy ball. He threw it, it bounced on the floor, hit the underside of a desk, reversed direction and went back to him (without hitting a vertical surface). We then spent 15 minutes discussing how the hell that happened. With little prompting from him. *That* is teaching science. Not memorising the formula for heat capacity for a test.

Actually I'm pretty sure that in the 1800's the foundation of most education was still history, philosophy, math, greek, and latin.

Reading good literature encourages critical thinking skills, and exposes you to new ideas and viewpoints. This is just as important for being a functional member of society as having someone lecture to you on how the Nazis came to power. History cannot be understood just as political and military events; if you don't understand the cultural history, including literature, you're only looking at half the picture.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Actually I'm pretty sure that in the 1800's the foundation of most education was still history, philosophy, math, greek, and latin.

Ok, i didn't exactly fact check that one... I guess what i was trying to say was that any attempt to reform the subject list is met with claims of "lowering standards" etc. As if what we currently have is perfection that could only be diminished.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Reading good literature encourages critical thinking skills, and exposes you to new ideas and viewpoints. This is just as important for being a functional member of society as having someone lecture to you on how the Nazis came to power. History cannot be understood just as political and military events; if you don't understand the cultural history, including literature, you're only looking at half the picture.

Yep... all good points. Except last time i checked, german books from the 20s and 30s weren't on the reading list. In fact, i don't remember a single book/film from outside the anglosphere from any period in history on ours. What's worse, there was an absurd bias towards Australian literature, regardless of our small population and the effect that has on the average quality of the works.

I actually meant history from a cultural point of view. Why did the germans accept the nazi party? What was life really like for them back then? How were they seduced? What parallels can we draw to the modern day? How do we avoid making the same mistake in future? Etc. A list of dates of hitler's ascent to power gives you none of that. That form of history teaching is bankrupt imho. Naturally, that's the form history at my school took, sigh.

Err... to any Germans reading this... i hope no one takes offence. None is intended.

Let's agree on something, we are not going to come up with a curriculum for primary school that would satisfy everybody. What you consider unnecessary, I could think as mandatory and vice versa. Everyone has a different perception of "what is needed in life".

For quite some time I couldn't understand why I had to memorise rivers in Europe, capitals of all Soviet Union Republics, dates of birth and death of kings that I didn't care of and I could multiply examples like that. But as I look back, I'm simply grateful that this was forced upon me. You are right that this not really needed to function but at the same time I don't work as a plumber. Also, when I meet with people, we can actually talk about something engaging rather than talking about latest fashion trends or which celebrity cheated on their partner with whoever else. There is a thread here where people whinge about levels of Japanese TV - where do you think this frustration is coming from?

Just recently, I witnessed something quite interesting. Meryl Streep was giving an interview on ozie TV. At some point the interviewer asked her a question: "In one of his interviews Jack Nicholson described you as a Gioconda of american cinema..." and Meryl didn't look as if she knew what that might have meant. So, the guys goes: "You know what Gioconda is, don't you?", Meryl: "Is it a snake?" Now, if such a prominent person of the american culture doesn't know that Gioconda is also known as Mona Lisa, what can you expect from a more regular bloke? Surely, they will want to dismiss culture from the education - after all, who cares about some Italian painter?

So, yes, such intangible things like culture are probably first on a list to go from the abridged curriculum but these intangible things make our lives more interesting.

Can't believe people are even suggesting ditching Shakespeare from the curriculum.

The purpose of school is to educate people in a broad range of subjects - and thus widen their knowledge and help them understand how the world works. Its purpose is not a factory to churn out worker bees by only teaching 'useful, practical skills' - in which case school would end at the age of 10 only teaching people basic maths (multiplication, and division), basic reading and writing (such as is needed to read a gossip mag), basic science (this is a solid, this is a liquid, this is a gas) and that would be the end of it.

I mean I've never used algebra in my entire life, so I guess that shouldn't be taught then. I've never done a science experiment outside of school, so I guess we needn't do those either. How ridiculous!

Our society is very much the society of the lowest common denominator already. I can't believe people are even suggesting that children be denied the opportunity to broaden their horizons. If many people had their way there would be 'Kardashian Studies' instead of 'History'.

When I took world History in high school, they talked in great detail about the causes of both WW1 and WW2 -- the mess of alliances that led to WW1 and the economic and social conditions that led to WW2. I think that may have even been covered in middle school too.

i'm with Zigmonty on this one.

i don't think we should abolish academic subjects... there should be enough left on the curriculum to give you a taster and let you work out if you're interested in them, should you wish to pursue them futher later.

However... what a good education should do is, imo, a.) increase your opportunities in life, and b.) prepare you for life in the real world.

Our education system at the moment has a huuuuuge bias to academic subjects. And frankly, even as someone who excelled at those academic subjects all my life meaning i should be one of the winners... instead i just feel kinda cheated.

i left school at 16... with no knowledge of how the world around me works. Man, i didn't even know what an engineer was until i asked on this forum. Again, that's despite getting A's in maths and science at GCSE. It's far, far too heavily biased to the academic side!!! The most i ever did to learn how things are made was nailing a few bits of wood together to make a box. I have no idea what to do if my bike gets a puncture, or about the fact that the gears aren't clicking into place properly, or even how to change a tyre on a car. I don't know how the water in the tap gets there, or how my computer works. The only programming we ever did was one single lesson on an 80's BBC computer, hopefully that's changed a bit now. And i have literally no idea how to go about designing a product that would be useful in any practical way.

For those who weren't the winners... i remember them having a tough time in maths and science, because it is so academically focused. It's hard for actually quite a lot of people to understand maths in the abstract. But give them a practical application, and they learn it far more quickly. And the point of science should be to teach you about the world around you... i remember doing stuff like burning magnesium, but still haven't got a clue what you would actually use magnesium for. And i loved balancing equations... but how does that really help if you don't even know what the elements in the equations you're balancing look like, or what they're used for?

There are academic subjects that i think everyone should leave school with too. The first is critical thinking... it should be taught directly, also as a practical skill that you should apply in your every day life whenever you read things.
Aside from that, every single student should leave school with an understanding of government and politics, what rights they have, and how to excersise them responsibly in society. Recent history is important in this respect, so we don't repeat the same mistakes again. Nobody should leave school without an understanding of the tax system, and what benefits you're entitled to under which circumstances.
And everyone should be taught basic economics, including basic accounting knowledge, shares and bonds, interest rates, currency, etc.

Perhaps some basic household knowledge and parenting skills would be good too. Also, much more training on how to co-operate in a team, and different leading styles would be good.

You should be able to specialise more later, depending on where your interests and talents lie. But honestly, i have no idea how anyone coming through the school system at the same time as i did ever found out they wanted to become an engineer, architect, mechanic, programmer, or even an investor in shares and bonds etc, because you just don't learn that these things even exist at school, let alone build a base of skills to continue with.

So yeah, education should be about increasing your opportunities in life... and for it to do that, you need a broad base of different types of skills, not just usher you along the traditional academic paths. It's not good for those who learn in more practical ways, obviously, and it's not even all that good for those who do learn academically, either. If we'd had a more broad base, i would probably have still pursued an academic route, because that's what i've always been interested in (and my teacher had to finish my box for me cos i was so useless at it lol). But even if i had, at least those other routes wouldn't be completely closed off to me if i ever wanted to pursue them. And at least i'd understand the world around me in a practical, as well as academic way.

Slightly off topic but i read a really interesting National Geographic article about different types of play in children of an African nomadic woodland tribe. It's here if you want to read it: (Japanese) http://nng.nikkeibp.co.jp/nng/article/20110715/277834/
A lot of their play is similar to that of Western children. But it's also quite interesting just how much of their play is directed towards learning the skills they need as an adult. And i can really imagine how fullfilling it must be when they do catch a fish or small animal and bring it home to the adults. When i compare it with my cousin, who's 4, and loves pretending he's his daddy and off to a hard day's work... but when questioned, doesn't even know in a basic way what his dad does, so the extent of his play is getting on a train to go... i do think that children's play does seem a little deprived in comparison here, in some ways.
Also, it's interesting to note that these children do have a school to go to, and do attend in the winter. In the summer, they disappear into the woods and their parents are often blamed for not keeping their kids in school. But it seems to me like they learn things that are beneficial in different ways in both settings. And i think there are things we can learn from looking at "natural" play for our own education systems.

IceCream Wrote:But honestly, i have no idea how anyone coming through the school system at the same time as i did ever found out they wanted to become an engineer, architect, mechanic, programmer, or even an investor in shares and bonds etc, because you just don't learn that these things even exist at school, let alone build a base of skills to continue with.

It's possible... I know people who went on to be mechanics and programmers and I did school projects about investing in shares. I guess it starts with choosing GCSEs. When I left school I had no idea what I wanted to do but I don't really blame the school. The friends I know who became mechanics and programmers had a strong interest in those things out of school as well as in school so I guess that is important.

And doing stuff like fixing a bike and car tyre is stuff you can easily learn in the real world, you just ask your parents, friends, neighbours to show you, you can't expect everything to be handed to you at school...!

Some of you guys have hit on something very important.

Rather than asking "What should people really be teaching in classes?" maybe we should start asking "Ideally, what kind of education system would give the most benefit for the least cost?"

Perhaps what school really "should" look like is such a drastic departure from the system we have now that it's hard for us to even think about. For example, we think of "school" as "a collection of structured classes." But is this really necessary for education to happen? A lot of the people we call geniuses were self-taught, but they had a learning environment that allowed them to apply what they were studying on their own. Maybe this is the kind of "system" we should be conceptualizing - one that provides an environment where students can be exposed to new ideas, and then give them opportunities to pursue the ones they want.

Obviously there needs to be some sort of structured "core" curriculum. After all, you can't study Shakespeare without first becoming literate. Expanding vocabulary is probably something that should be continually developed as well. But if, after being exposed to a little bit of algebra and a little bit of Shakespeare, you decide you would rather pursue one over the other, should you be forced to do both? I don't really think this is necessary.

My struggle with school (before college) was that I was continually forced to study things that I had no interest in, and therefore no motivation to do well in. If you'e the kind of person who likes to learn everything put in front of them no matter what it is, great. If you're the kind of person who has parents that expect you to make straight A's and punish you when you don't, fine. But if a person doesn't fall into either of these categories, they're going to find it very hard to succeed in school, especially if no one has told them that making good grades is important later for various reasons.

You can make whatever defenses you want of the current system, but the fact is that, at least according to 2009 figures collected by the NAEP*, more than half of the 12th graders studied were "not proficient in reading." For a compulsory education system, that is laughable. No, more than that, it's shameful. How can you expect a system to properly teach people about the implications of historical events or the nuances of literature when it can't even ensure basic literacy?

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to find a different way of doing school. One which actually has the power to motivate students to want to learn.

---
* http://www.educationnation.com/index.cfm...0C296BA163

@Caivano: right... people learn them outside of school. But that depends on what your parents do, and what's introduced to you outside of school. So your opportunities are limited by that, which is part of the "class mobility" issue too, right...?

The point isn't that i think we should be taught how to fix a bike at school, or that i'm blaming school for not knowing what to do in the world. They can't teach you everything!!!

The point is a much more fundamental one about what skills you need in the world... and what methods you have at your disposal to learn about it.

When i want to learn something new, what do you think i do? i go and get a book on it. I'm good at learning that way, and it's not a horrific thing to do. But there's many other ways of learning things. When i wanted to learn about chimpanzees, i went and checked a bunch of books out of the library. When i was told to learn by observing the actual chimpanzees in front of me, i felt horribly uneasy, because i have no clear idea of how to learn like that. So... i went and checked out a book on how to learn through observation lol. And i still don't get it really, not in a practical way.
It's exactly the same situation with practical things... i should be able to fiddle around with my bike until i get it, but it's something that i'm really not confident in doing, because... well, i've never done it. It's not a matter of knowing how to fix a bike in particular, it's a matter of never having learnt how to learn to do something through... practically doing something, rather than reading a book on it. Does that make sense?