There will be ignorant individuals but hey at least they won't be inflicting it on 90% of the children. As for kids that get sent to astrology school or whatever else, the smart one's will still figure out it's bull. Those that don't, well I don't think the school is entirely to blame.

re Northern Europe. You don't think levels of education being high has something to do with being economically strong? Anyway Europe's bankrupting itself with its socialism. Lets see how they rank 20 years from now.

An interesting thought people are hitting on is that the best judge of how one learns best is often oneself. That is, normally a person knows what they like well enough after, say, a couple of years into middle school (say around age 12), that they can make valid decisions for themselves given all the relevant data. When you see an entire career path laid out before you it is MUCH easier to decide whether or not it's worth pursuing than if you're only given a little bit at a time. When you don't have someone telling you "You need to make [X] grades in [Y] courses in order to get [Z] job," it's easy to feel like it's all just pointless, rote memorization. Which often times it is.

I don't see how giving kids the power to prioritize is a bad thing. You have this option in college, why not before? College doesn't restrict you from taking one course over another - you can sign up for whatever course you want. Now obviously you need to take a certain regimen of courses in a particular major to graduate in four years with a degree, but no on'es forcing you.

"You need to make [X] grades in [Y] courses in order to get [Z] job," it's easy to feel like it's all just pointless, rote memorization. Which often times it is.

yeah especially when the same thing is and has been prescribed to everyone with zero regard for what the market regards as necessary skills.

Icecream (I think) mentioned critical thinking, I don't think critical thinking can occur without choice. Let children make their own decisions, take responsibility from an early age and pursue their own interests and you'll foster critical thinking.

Yeah, i remember being told a whole bunch of mistruths when selecting subjects in the latter years of high school. Either the teachers were completely out of touch with the real world or they were actively lying to us. Vast swaths of people end up in uni degrees that *will not* lead to a job, mostly because they're clueless and no one was honest with them.

The whole "follow your interests" crap is just that, crap. Follow the thing you're most interested in that society actually needs you to do enough to pay you. Yeah, sure, maybe discouraging aspiring poets isn't nice, but they should at least be made aware what the consequences of their decisions are. Or realise that maybe, just maybe, that interest should be treated as a hobby until they prove their talent to the world and that they should plan for a day job.

Yes, yes, uni isn't about vocational education, but that's an ideal for people who have money. When you're 22 and figure out that you just wasted 3 years on something that gives you no marketable skills, it's a pretty depressing feeling. I caught it while i was still at uni (transferred out of science into engineering), although my case isn't as extreme as "physicist" is at least still a job title, albeit not a terribly high-paying one (and i'd also figured out i actually liked engineering more).

[Zgarbas]

Try finding out that the degree you actually get is in "Philology" and is worth less than your high school diploma(job market wise).


* it was in a small note at the end, and it is counter intuitive since we're officially doing a double-major in two languages. Accidentally found this out when looking to get my translator's degree.

** our private schools are so bad that they are not even acknowledged by the government, something which the faculty neglects to tell you.

LivingNexus Wrote:An interesting thought people are hitting on is that the best judge of how one learns best is often oneself. That is, normally a person knows what they like well enough after, say, a couple of years into middle school (say around age 12), that they can make valid decisions for themselves given all the relevant data.

I don't think that most 12 year olds are able to fully grasp what it means to make a 'career choice', pretty much all 12 year olds I've met, as well as me, have a very hard time thinking of themselves as soon-to-be 15 year olds, let alone adults. As a society we should be doing as much as possible to help them grasp all this, like Icecream and others discussed in previous posts, but I still think that it would be naïve of us to expect most 12-year-olds to be able to make a fully conscious decision re: the working life that they will initiate in 10 years or even later. Helping kids develop their liberty-enabling skills is very important but as a society we also need to acknowledge that there will be many individuals who have a very limited capacity of knowing what's 'best for them' until they reach a certain age. Besides, kids that hit puberty early and therefore get a boost in cognitive development get an advantage compared to other kids.

Some people think that in a number of countries this is already happening - girls as a group develop more quickly than boys and are often better at planning ahead during (especially) the early years of adolescence, so when schools expect younger and younger children to decide more on their own, girls get an advantage. That's not the whole story behind why women are doing better academically than men in some countries today, far from it. However, it nicely illustrates how a system that might seem totally fair at first glance might and is intended to be so might end up giving some people unexpected dis/advantages. Even though it seems that the same opportunities are given to everyone, the differences in already attained skills/resources/etc means that some will be much better/worse at making full use of these opportunities. You might say that, in a way, you aren't really giving the same opportunities to everyone because they mean so vastly different things to different people, in much the same way that banks' loan offers mean vastly different things to someone who has studied economics for three years and someone who only knows basic maths.

Certainly young people at that age need encouragement and discussion about what course they want their lives to take, but I don't really think there's any problem with laying out their options for them to make their own decisions about. I'm not talking about putting them on rails toward a career they might choose on a whim. I'm talking about giving them the information they need to make smart decisions.

Also, there's a big difference between expecting kids to make important life decisions and helping them make those decisions. Even if some children are ready to make those kinds of decisions for themselves at an earlier age, I think proper guidance could level the playing field for the majority of cases. Obviously there's no helping the stubborn ones who are determined to ruin their own lives regardless, but we're not really talking about them.

I also think that, alongside academic studies, children should be required to start learning a trade. You're never too young to learn something useful. Think of all the hoops a child has to jump through, and a the skills he has to learn, to become an Eagle Scout*. If you haven't looked at the list of requirements, I encourage you to. Imagine if someone knew that much about a trade coming out of high school; they would always have something to fall back on if their career plans didn't work out, or in the meantime between "real" jobs. Imagine if high-schoolers graduated knowing how to barista, or stack library shelves and catalog books, or run a cash register -- heck what if they had real management skills? That would make a high school diploma mean a lot more.

------
* http://scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScout...eagle.aspx

Why do people work on this assumption that unless you have your entire life figured out by 21, you might as well go hang yourself from the rafters.

What's that, you studied something that wasn't obviously immediately employable like accountancy.. then you are a failure go die over there with the rest of the scum!.. it's not like you have 45 years of work ahead of you to get to where you want, and to work on a career with plenty of different opportunities or anything, nope.. you didn't walk into the job you'll spend the rest of your life doing immediately upon graduation therefore you fail as a human being.

What a truly shitty mindset the world is stuck in.

LivingNexus Wrote:I also think that, alongside academic studies, children should be required to start learning a trade. You're never too young to learn something useful. Think of all the hoops a child has to jump through, and a the skills he has to learn, to become an Eagle Scout*. If you haven't looked at the list of requirements, I encourage you to. Imagine if someone knew that much about a trade coming out of high school; they would always have something to fall back on if their career plans didn't work out, or in the meantime between "real" jobs. Imagine if high-schoolers graduated knowing how to barista, or stack library shelves and catalog books, or run a cash register -- heck what if they had real management skills? That would make a high school diploma mean a lot more.

That's what's written, but Boy Scouts actually don't learn anything to the degree that it's useful, haha. My friend became an Eagle Scout and now regrets it--if only because later he realized that the Boy Scouts of America is a homophobic Christian organization, and he's an atheist who supports gay rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_...troversies

zigmonty Wrote:I caught it while i was still at uni (transferred out of science into engineering), although my case isn't as extreme as "physicist" is at least still a job title, albeit not a terribly high-paying one (and i'd also figured out i actually liked engineering more).

i thought pure science was more research based? i was thinking of going back to school and studying pure science, although at the moment i'm just trying to figure out what to do in my life instead of wallowing in self-hate with my crappy job everyday. =)

i think there just needs to be better awareness of what needs to be done in society instead of giving all these practical and marketable skills that are lifeless in nature. what jobs are out there? why are we doing these jobs? why are certain people getting paid more? what kind of responsibility do we have when we do these jobs? how do we change jobs? what problems do we need to solve in life?

a lot of my personal focus comes from the fact that it's election season in the US, and the focus is on jobs and job creation... which makes me wonder why we're not focusing on identifying and creating work that needs to be done and instead focusing on this myth that jobs will appear out of nowhere.

LivingNexus Wrote:I also think that, alongside academic studies, children should be required to start learning a trade. You're never too young to learn something useful. Think of all the hoops a child has to jump through, and a the skills he has to learn, to become an Eagle Scout*. If you haven't looked at the list of requirements, I encourage you to. Imagine if someone knew that much about a trade coming out of high school; they would always have something to fall back on if their career plans didn't work out, or in the meantime between "real" jobs. Imagine if high-schoolers graduated knowing how to barista, or stack library shelves and catalog books, or run a cash register -- heck what if they had real management skills? That would make a high school diploma mean a lot more.

Uhm... making coffee, stacking shelves and using cash registers aren't exactly the most demanding of tasks. I don't think Starbucks is having trouble finding capable employees. I don't think teaching kids how to flip burgers to save them the five seconds of learning on the job is very meaningful, nor inspiring.

[Zgarbas]

Also one does not simply learn the Dewey Decimal System on the side...there's a reason why people take MAs in Library science you know =/.

Food for thought for the school voucher proponents:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...ss/250564/

Finland has a successful education system with no private schools and no choice at all.

The Atlantic Wrote:Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.

In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.

nadiatims Wrote:re Northern Europe. You don't think levels of education being high has something to do with being economically strong? Anyway Europe's bankrupting itself with its socialism. Lets see how they rank 20 years from now.

Central planning doesn't work, you said, but apparently it does without economic problems... Could it be that the real problems with the American school system are numerous and complex? Because, ding, that's the right answer.

You need to stop filtering your opinion of ever problem through the lens of some form of libertarianism, or belief in the laissez-faire style of doing things. The world is complex: there's no lens you can look through that will magically solve its problems.

(PS, if you really believe Europe is bankrupting itself, then please explain it? People say that sentence a lot, but they generally don't seem to know anything about it and just heard it in passing somewhere.)

nadiatims Wrote:

Icecream Wrote:i very much doubt that the market would dictate any broader of a base for education than the current system does.

Sure it would. Parents would be free to send their kids to whatever kind of school they like, maybe that would be entail a classical education, maybe something vocational, maybe more artistic. You'd have different kinds of schools catering to different niches and income levels. You could let schools and universities completely decide their own entry criterion. That might involve some outsourcing to testing services that exist solely for evaluating knowledge.

Well, 1stly... i have a very firm belief in equality of opportunity / meritocracy in this respect. I just don't think that the quality of education you receive should be dependant on the income level of your family.

Secondly, we have a system very close to what you're describing already. Universities DO decide their own entry criteria, both in subjects taken, and grades received. It's just that in Europe, those entry criteria don't include "how much money you have". And why should it, really?

If you look at where the American system is failing at the university level, it's definately on this basis. The demand for entrance to ivy league schools is so high that you have to pay truly astonishing amounts to go to one of those colleges. I mean, it's so high that it's actually counterintuitive to go to one unless you plan on working in an investment bank really, because one year of education at one of those schools costs more than you will earn in one year... even in a very well paid job such as a business consultant at one of the top agencies, for example.

One important element of freedom of choice lies in having access to good quality information to make your choice. This is one of the reasons for having a regulated curriculum and freuqent testing. It's a clear way to identify which schools are doing well, and which ones are failing. You can just as easily allow parents to choose between schools based on that nowadays, and not be stuck with whatever school is in your postcode group. It's unclear how you expect parents to really make an informed choice about schools without some common standard by which to compare.

The problems that are occuring with this system at the moment are fixable through government, i think.

There needs to be a broader base for education than just academic subjects taught in an academic way. That should be for everyone up around 16, because ultimately it'll allow you a greater choice of what you want to do later, as well as giving you the skills to be able to learn new things through a variety of methods.

There also really needs to be something done about the disconnect between schools and what's actually done in the world. It's not obvious what your choices are for the future when you're at school. You're told to get good grades so you can get a "good job", but you're not told what those "good jobs" are, or how your subject choices affect your options later. There should be much stronger links between schools and the wider community in this respect. Things like LivingNexus suggested are kind of representative of this... we all know that there are coffee shops and libraries in the world, but the other jobs, and what they involve aren't always so obvious.

But anyway, i think Japan is much better at this than the UK is... a strong component of most dramas is working life, and how that job is meaningful in the wider society and in itself. It's one of the reasons i like watching them. I wonder what they do in school like this as well...

Finally, i don't think strong critical skills necessarily have to come through choice, it's more like... taking possession of your own learning. You can do that with any subject. You just have to have the right tools so you know how to learn on your own. So there should be more done to give you those skills as tools to use on your own rather than spoon feed you information, i think.
("critical thinking", which is what i was talking about, is slightly different to that, and is more like an academic subject).

p.s. Europe isn't bankrupting itself through socialism lol. It's not countries like Sweden and Denmark that are causing all the trouble now is it...

It took two world wars for Europe to realise that those who benefited from them are only America and Australia (in the Western world). The will to integrate European states in 60'ies onwards was/is unprecedented and no realistically thinking European politician would think of another war on European soil (Balkans are excepted but I hear it's getting quieter there as well). Economically, European potential is greater than American and you can just see how how they are catching up. In areas like health care, education, employment, etc. there is simply no comparison between those two (what Michael Moore is showing is simply horrifying). Yes, the Uncle Sam's folks should push for the reforms because their government is not doing well.

And some food for thought, just from today's news:

Quote:India Turns Down American Fighter Jets, Buys From France

"While America had offered the F-16, F-18 and now the stealth F-35 fighter, India picked for its new multi-role attack jet a low cost, older French plane. Why? For one, it's cheaper, and two, if American/Indian relations go bad, can they get the parts and equipment to keep the planes in the air? It seems prudence beat out the latest in technology."

IceCream Wrote:If you look at where the American system is failing at the university level, it's definately on this basis. The demand for entrance to ivy league schools is so high that you have to pay truly astonishing amounts to go to one of those colleges. I mean, it's so high that it's actually counterintuitive to go to one unless you plan on working in an investment bank really, because one year of education at one of those schools costs more than you will earn in one year... even in a very well paid job such as a business consultant at one of the top agencies, for example.

Just a small correction to this. Ivy League schools are need-blind. They have huge endowments which allow them to provide substantial aid. At Harvard, for example, students who come from families with an income of less than $65000 pay nothing. Those whose families make less than $150,000 pay a small fraction of the actual cost. So, America's very brightest students can get a good undergraduate education without having to go into debt. It's everyone else who is in trouble.

LivingNexus Wrote:I also think that, alongside academic studies, children should be required to start learning a trade. You're never too young to learn something useful. Think of all the hoops a child has to jump through, and a the skills he has to learn, to become an Eagle Scout*. If you haven't looked at the list of requirements, I encourage you to. Imagine if someone knew that much about a trade coming out of high school; they would always have something to fall back on if their career plans didn't work out, or in the meantime between "real" jobs. Imagine if high-schoolers graduated knowing how to barista, or stack library shelves and catalog books, or run a cash register -- heck what if they had real management skills? That would make a high school diploma mean a lot more.

As dizmox pointed out, making coffee, running a register, and stocking; are not skills. They are things a business can teach a new employee in like a week. They can teach high schoolers this stuff in a week as well.

I have a better example. Here in Japan JUNIOR HIGHS (7th 8th and 9th grade in US school system) are given time by the boards to allow the school to decide something to do for the students. At one of my schools they use the time to teach the students to farm, considering that this IS the rural area. Trade skill? Debatable.

When I think trade skill though I'm thinking about stuff like welding, carpentry, masonry, plumbing, textiles, electrician, mechanic, repairman. These are all jobs that never disappear and will always be needed.

Inny Jan Wrote:It took two world wars for Europe to realise that those who benefited from them are only America and Australia (in the Western world). The will to integrate European states in 60'ies onwards was/is unprecedented and no realistically thinking European politician would think of another war on European soil (Balkans are excepted but I hear it's getting quieter there as well). Economically, European potential is greater than American and you can just see how how they are catching up. In areas like health care, education, employment, etc. there is simply no comparison between those two (what Michael Moore is showing is simply horrifying). Yes, the Uncle Sam's folks should push for the reforms because their government is not doing well.

I think the EU has wrought a number of great things like healthcare and education, but many of these are largely subsidized by the system and without a strong economy/smart budgeting, they are not really sustainable.

You say that the EU's potential is greater than the US, however there are only really a handful of economic super giants in the Euro bloc. This is, among other things (countries being unable to print their own currency), is the primary reason that the EU is in crisis mode now. The major difference between the 2 systems is that the US is by and large, a service based economy now. The exports very little in terms of products, where as I believe many EU countries still export a lot and gain more per GDP from manufacturing than services. I think we can expect to see the US return to manufacturing here in coming decades though as China races to middle class status; same with India.

Personally I'm banking on the Euro collapsing at the most. I think between the disgruntled citizens of the countries suffering under austerity and the Germans footing so much of the bill to keep Italy and Greece up; you will eventually see someone snap and just leave the Euro or be forced out. There was a recent article that showed most Germans want Greece to return to the Drachma. If countries start falling out of the EU or Euro bloc then it will call into question the stability of the currency and investors will flee the scene.

Quote:And some food for thought, just from today's news:

Quote:India Turns Down American Fighter Jets, Buys From France

"While America had offered the F-16, F-18 and now the stealth F-35 fighter, India picked for its new multi-role attack jet a low cost, older French plane. Why? For one, it's cheaper, and two, if American/Indian relations go bad, can they get the parts and equipment to keep the planes in the air? It seems prudence beat out the latest in technology."

I don't see what bearing this has on the subject at hand. Basically India just wanted cheaper and went France. There's nothing to say that French/India relations couldn't go sour in the future just as easily.

zigmonty Wrote:One of the core principles in Australia (and i'm guessing most of the western world) is that it doesn't matter who your parents are, you'll still be given a fair go in life. Everyone receiving the same compulsory education is a great leveller.

Spot on, zigmonty. I can tell you for sure that in the UK, it does matter who your parents are, and you won't necessarily be given a fair go in life. Half of the high court judges went to private schools, a third of the MPs, and a third of leading journalists, but only 7 percent of children attend private schools. No surprise: £15,000/year for at least six years isn't easy to come up with.

And sadly, many of those private school kids are really just average. Eloquent, yes, but in no way smarter than the kids who managed to go through state comprehensives.

To give this some perspective, I should say that I'm teaching at a university that's been highly ranked and which can afford to be very selective. I would much rather have a good, compulsory tax-funded school system in this country.

Here's some better food for thought:

"Self-serve kiosks are the new look for American Airlines at LAX"
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/06/...e-20120206

Quote:"Agents are concerned about the effort by American Airlines to have customers totally bypass employees through the use of a variety of technologies, like agent-less travel, and contracting out the work of helping customers with kiosks, and other technology," said Candice Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America, which is working with ticket agents to unionize.

Service work is being replaced by technology, and an entire career path is folding. Would any amount or any type of education save these people's jobs? What happens to those who have been working for years? Should they faulted for not pursuing the right education at the right time?

If they have good education, like a college degree, they can fall back on something else. So education would help them. It's important to be adaptable. And it sucks to lose your job after many years because of external circumstances, but that's what happens sometimes.