Is the U.S. education system going downhill?
| Our government does know what they are doing, they're not stupid. |
I beg to differ. They do most of the time, but come on. Let's not forget all the million dollar vacations Obama has made in the past 6 years, that we technically paid for.
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
| Canis Iupus wrote: |
|---|
| If that is the case they need to be removed from power ASAP. |
Watch it. People who think this way have a funny way of being discretely deposited at the bottom of the Atlantic. Not to say that I'm against the notion...but is there a better system to replace it with (without usurpers moving in before it's established)? I doubt it. If only the south had won the first American civil war...
| AceDawg45 wrote: |
|---|
| we technically paid for |
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Obviously I was talking about voting the out of office at the next election...honest .
Yes the US education system is screwed.
I agree with giblit on this. The only ones paying for it are tax payers.
| AceDawg45 wrote: |
|---|
| that we technically paid for. |
I agree with giblit on this. The only ones paying for it are tax payers.
I used to think that the education in my country (Australia) was fairly bad, as it has problems, but reading this thread it makes me start to wonder...
I guess the main problem is flexibility. Here in Australia, as long as you get the basic knowledge to pass the HSC (final end-of-school test) the school has done its job, as the mark from that determines what courses in what universities you can get into. However, then there are a variety of schools, and each one can do the teaching how it likes, as long as the syllabus is covered - for example, there are things like 'Selective' schools which only people who get a certain mark in a test will be accepted, or private schools for people willing to pay (sometimes ridiculous amounts of) money to go to, and Comprehensive schools for everyone left over.
I think that in all school systems, flexibility is what is required. As I said, even the school system here is dodgy, mostly due to the infrequency with which the syllabus will be updated. For example, in IPT (Information Processes and Technology), we had to learn "how to use a floppy disk drive".
As for us 'paying for education', yes we are, but that is a good thing. If we weren't paying for it, then the underprivileged would never get to school, never get a proper job, and their kids would never get to school, starting a deadly cycle. Rather, it should be made known that a better education system is required, and vote for people who are going for it.
I guess the main problem is flexibility. Here in Australia, as long as you get the basic knowledge to pass the HSC (final end-of-school test) the school has done its job, as the mark from that determines what courses in what universities you can get into. However, then there are a variety of schools, and each one can do the teaching how it likes, as long as the syllabus is covered - for example, there are things like 'Selective' schools which only people who get a certain mark in a test will be accepted, or private schools for people willing to pay (sometimes ridiculous amounts of) money to go to, and Comprehensive schools for everyone left over.
I think that in all school systems, flexibility is what is required. As I said, even the school system here is dodgy, mostly due to the infrequency with which the syllabus will be updated. For example, in IPT (Information Processes and Technology), we had to learn "how to use a floppy disk drive".
As for us 'paying for education', yes we are, but that is a good thing. If we weren't paying for it, then the underprivileged would never get to school, never get a proper job, and their kids would never get to school, starting a deadly cycle. Rather, it should be made known that a better education system is required, and vote for people who are going for it.
| AceDawg wrote: |
|---|
| Let's not forget all the million dollar vacations Obama has made in the past 6 years, that we technically paid for. |
Source?
Obama is free to take paid vacations as you are on any fulltime job. But since you implying that he took money out of the budget to pay for his travel/lodging/etc expenses, I call bullshit.
| Luc Lieber wrote: |
|---|
| If only the south had won the first American civil war... |
I've gone back and forth on this topic as well. I think if the south had won and we were left with the two countries (USA/CSA)... I think the USA would probably have advanced much more rapidly in the frontiers of social progression, but we would not be the military stronghold we are today.
Further, I think the CSA would have collapsed within the next century... Effectively becoming a poverty stricken nation.
Most of the industry in the USA (post industrial revolution) came from the north or west. The south basically based their entire economy on slave trade, which obviously would not have been sustainable.
After the Great Depression, the economic strength of the Federal government was what allowed the USA's economy to bounce back. The CSA with its weak central government would have had a harder time... but then again they quite possibly would not have suffered the depression in the first place. At least not on the same scale.
I think overall, when you look at the big picture... it's better for both sides that the north won.
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
Disch, you've left out one major point. We would likely be speaking German or Russian today if the south had won.
(oh, and since we're talking about education...)
What education system would you propose, Disch? I don't think that individualized learning is very feasible. That would nearly take a 1:1 ratio of instructors to students.
(oh, and since we're talking about education...)
What education system would you propose, Disch? I don't think that individualized learning is very feasible. That would nearly take a 1:1 ratio of instructors to students.
Last edited on
This has been blown out of proportion. How people teach is trivial to compared to other issues like the teachers who don't teach at ALL, under funded schools, student loan debt, and affirmative action.
Tell that to the asians and indians who have to work twice as hard as whites to get accepted into ivy league schools.
| All you will need in a couple years to get to college, is a pencil. |
Tell that to the asians and indians who have to work twice as hard as whites to get accepted into ivy league schools.
Last edited on
| Tell that to the asians and indians who have to work twice as hard as whites to get accepted into ivy league schools. |
*fixed quote tags
Last edited on
| Luc Lieber wrote: |
|---|
| Disch, you've left out one major point. We would likely be speaking German or Russian today if the south had won. |
I find that extremely unlikely. If for no other reason than that we are geographically isolated. Invading the US is extraordinarily difficult. England even lost Revolutionary war for that reason, and they were easily the strongest military of the day.
Plus... in America... we tend to hype up how great we are. Yes, we contributed a great deal to WW2... but it's not like we won it single-handedly. The USSR probably did the most work.
As for a Russian invasion... pshaw. The USSR couldn't even sustain itself after the cold war. How was it going to sustain itself + an occupied America?
EDIT:
| Cody wrote: |
|---|
| the teachers who don't teach at ALL, under funded schools |
These problems are one and the same, in my eyes. And yes I agree it's a huge problem.
| student loan debt |
The idea that private universities are the norm in this country is completely batshit insane. Why is it that public education just stops after highschool? I guess there are community colleges.
But the idea that you have to go in debt to get an education is retarded. It's a clear skew to keep money with the wealthy.
| giblit wrote: |
|---|
| Some of us "white" may be offended by that statement |
If you are white in the US, and don't recognize White Privilege, you are either blind, or an asshole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
(and yes, I am white)
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
| giblit wrote: |
|---|
| Some of us "white" may be offended by that statement. |
Offense may only be taken if evidence is presented disproving the statement. Otherwise it's a statistical fact.
*waiting for evidence*
| Luc Lieber wrote: |
|---|
| Offense may only be taken if evidence is presented disproving the statement |
| If you are white in the US, and don't recognize White Privilege, you are either blind, or an asshole. |
Last edited on
| giblit wrote: |
|---|
| No, offense may be taken when someone says that large group of people doesn't have to work for things in life. |
Nobody is saying white people don't have to work. But we certainly don't have to work as hard. Look at any statistic which compares race and wealth. White people are at the top by a huge margin across the board.
| I also don't really care for people that make racial statements. Who cares what race we are? |
I appreciate your idealism, but the sad reality is that it still matters a great deal, whether or not people realize it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a-v2n62C9k
EDIT:
Saying racism doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem. Racism still clearly does exist. We're not going to solve the problem by denying it, or avoiding the topic when it comes up.
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| I find that extremely unlikely. If for no other reason than that we are geographically isolated. Invading the US is extraordinarily difficult. |
From my understanding, Germany was by far the most technologically advanced military of its time. They were (perhaps?) very close to beating the US in the "race to the nuke", and very well might have if things turned out just a whisker differently. A country doesn't have to be invaded to be subdued and conquered.
I like playing "what-if", but that'd be great for a different thread.
| giblit wrote: |
|---|
| Who cares what race we are? |
Exactly my point. I treat all statements in the same way: true or false. Racial considerations are quite insignificant in my eyes.
Last edited on
I'm not trying to start some pity party. I'm just saying the quote was completely off. May be I read too much into it.
@Disch, spot on. And the some kids that do get the loans spend it on things other than education. Another bail out is looming.
@Disch, spot on. And the some kids that do get the loans spend it on things other than education. Another bail out is looming.
| Schools have to raise £2m to become an academy - from private organisations such as business, faith or voluntary groups. But universities, high performing colleges and schools will now be exempt from that requirement, after schools secretary Ed Balls called in July for more universities to get involved in running academies. |
It has to be said that I'm yet to visit a school that did it through the 2m privately raised route. They all did through "high performance" although the performance requried is not actually all that high to be honest.
| I find that extremely unlikely. If for no other reason than that we are geographically isolated. Invading the US is extraordinarily difficult. day. |
A full scale land invasion of the UK seems to be impossible (since 1066) and that's only isolated by ~25 miles of water.
Plus... in America... we tend to hype up how great we are. Yes, we contributed a great deal to WW2... but it's not like we won it single-handedly. The USSR probably did the most work. |
I thought the story of WWII is that Germany was having a real hard time of things trying to somehow organize an invasion of the UK and attacked Russia at the same time, leading to strong counter attacks by a UK/US army and Russian army on each side. Or in other words, probably the 3 strongest powers Germany could face. Once Japan was alone in the war, defeat was really a matter of time.
| They were (perhaps?) very close to beating the US in the "race to the nuke |
Actually, they weren't. At all.
As a matter of related interest, there are an enormous number of pillar-boxes still around the UK coast (abandoned) remaining from WWII, most especially along the south cost. It's rather weird, though it happens quite often, finding these when you're wandering along the beach.
I didn't notice this late edit until now:
For starters, we need to throw out standardized testing. It doesn't work, and has never worked.
Lesson plans should be focused on getting kids interested, rather than bombarding them with information and telling them to memorize it.
There should be more breaks to allow kids to unwind and/or digest the information.
More options for the arts should be available (music, drawing, etc).
The last 3 points were even experimented with in pre-K and Kindergaten in different areas of the country... and were shown to be extremely effective. Kids that participated in those programs excelled... but funding for it never expanded into grade school because the advantage gained "wore off" after a few years of grade school.
So instead of taking what was working and extending it to future grades, we decided to just stop doing it.
But really the key goal here is to make school something kids actually want to go to. If you make school fun... kids will want to go, and the learning will just sort of happen.
| Luc Lieber wrote: |
|---|
| What education system would you propose, Disch? I don't think that individualized learning is very feasible. That would nearly take a 1:1 ratio of instructors to students. |
For starters, we need to throw out standardized testing. It doesn't work, and has never worked.
Lesson plans should be focused on getting kids interested, rather than bombarding them with information and telling them to memorize it.
There should be more breaks to allow kids to unwind and/or digest the information.
More options for the arts should be available (music, drawing, etc).
The last 3 points were even experimented with in pre-K and Kindergaten in different areas of the country... and were shown to be extremely effective. Kids that participated in those programs excelled... but funding for it never expanded into grade school because the advantage gained "wore off" after a few years of grade school.
So instead of taking what was working and extending it to future grades, we decided to just stop doing it.
But really the key goal here is to make school something kids actually want to go to. If you make school fun... kids will want to go, and the learning will just sort of happen.
I would also suggest make the funding we provide for education more about the kids and less about the schools and teachers. Don't get me wrong I am not saying I hate teachers but we are already pouring a huge amount of money at our education problem and it isn't working. This isn't a problem of under funding education, we are dumping more money then basically any other developed country into education. We just aren't either A) spending it correctly or B) some other problem.
If you don't believe me take a look at the studies that have been done recently which shows the US spending more per student then mostly any other country and yet we rank pretty low internationally on education.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp (A bit dated)
http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/
http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2013%20(eng)--FINAL%2020%20June%202013.pdf (162)
I believe the reason behind this is that instead of that money going to the kids (New lesson materials, more classes like music, technology, art, etc. mainly stuff that benefits them and their education) we are now more concerned it seems with that money going to the teachers and administrators of the schools.
Personally I find it completely insane that if you live in a certain area you must send your kid to a certain public school. If that school sucks well the only other option you have is to send your kid to a private school which aren't cheap and on top of that you will still have to pay for that public school your child doesn't use.
Instead of that stupid situation which is just encouraging laziness from school districts (Because a lot of parents have no other option then to send their kid to that district even if it sucks. So if that district does a bad job well doesn't matter they still will receive funding because most people have no choice) I would recommend something that gives parents more choice on which school they can send their children to.
I am no law maker so don't have any great ideas but maybe a system where instead of the money going to the school districts for each student they have, setup a school fund for each child which parents can use to pay for their child to attend whichever public school district they choose. This gives the kids options to escape bad school districts and gives school districts a reason to find the best teachers and give good courses and teaching.
Sorry about the rant that is sort of off topic but Luc Lieber asked what changes people would propose and I think this is something that needs to be address. Not being able to have a choice in which school you go to is just insane and a lot of people are locked into poor education because of it. I believe this is true for the whole US but it is for sure true in my home state.
For example in Minneapolis the capital of my state last time I checked 47% of students graduated on time. Are you kidding me 47%?!?! Yet that school district gets the majority of the funding provided by our state. Where is that money being spent? Obviously not wisely if they continue to have that low of graduation rates.
The sad thing is them kids have no other option then to go to that district because most that go to that district are not from wealthy families that can afford private schools. I guarantee them low graduation rates are not because those kids don't care about learning and don't want to graduate.
Anyways I will end here and sorry again for the rant ;p
If you don't believe me take a look at the studies that have been done recently which shows the US spending more per student then mostly any other country and yet we rank pretty low internationally on education.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp (A bit dated)
http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/
http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2013%20(eng)--FINAL%2020%20June%202013.pdf (162)
I believe the reason behind this is that instead of that money going to the kids (New lesson materials, more classes like music, technology, art, etc. mainly stuff that benefits them and their education) we are now more concerned it seems with that money going to the teachers and administrators of the schools.
Personally I find it completely insane that if you live in a certain area you must send your kid to a certain public school. If that school sucks well the only other option you have is to send your kid to a private school which aren't cheap and on top of that you will still have to pay for that public school your child doesn't use.
Instead of that stupid situation which is just encouraging laziness from school districts (Because a lot of parents have no other option then to send their kid to that district even if it sucks. So if that district does a bad job well doesn't matter they still will receive funding because most people have no choice) I would recommend something that gives parents more choice on which school they can send their children to.
I am no law maker so don't have any great ideas but maybe a system where instead of the money going to the school districts for each student they have, setup a school fund for each child which parents can use to pay for their child to attend whichever public school district they choose. This gives the kids options to escape bad school districts and gives school districts a reason to find the best teachers and give good courses and teaching.
Sorry about the rant that is sort of off topic but Luc Lieber asked what changes people would propose and I think this is something that needs to be address. Not being able to have a choice in which school you go to is just insane and a lot of people are locked into poor education because of it. I believe this is true for the whole US but it is for sure true in my home state.
For example in Minneapolis the capital of my state last time I checked 47% of students graduated on time. Are you kidding me 47%?!?! Yet that school district gets the majority of the funding provided by our state. Where is that money being spent? Obviously not wisely if they continue to have that low of graduation rates.
The sad thing is them kids have no other option then to go to that district because most that go to that district are not from wealthy families that can afford private schools. I guarantee them low graduation rates are not because those kids don't care about learning and don't want to graduate.
Anyways I will end here and sorry again for the rant ;p
Last edited on
I hate school. I sit there in math not learning about things that will help me in life, ex. financial things, but we do sit there talking about factorizing quadratic equations