Better Education

[Raider5678]

What would be the best way to give people a better education?

Like extending school through the summer, extending the number of years you go to school(focusing on the United States.)?

 

 

And I was curious.

What if schools tested children every year from kindergarten - 6th grade, and if children tested high enough(I'm talking very high.) they would have the choice of going to a special school run by the government where they would start learning in a chosen field as well as getting an advanced general education.

Like say a school had a kid one year who tested high enough. He would be able to decide, without parental approval, to go to the government run school. In the government run school he has a food and board, as well as the option to choose from the finest classes in things like Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, etc. And kids that graduated from that school would be guaranteed to have the choice to be employed by the government. So kids graduating from here could start off working as an assistant rocket engineer or something like that. Would this be a good program to have?

Kids could go without paying anything. Rich or poor, black or white, Muslim or christian. And money couldn't get you in there. Failing kids get kicked out.

[Argent]

What would be the best way to give people a better education?

Get consistently good teachers.

 

 

Like extending school through the summer, extending the number of years you go to school(focusing on the United States.)?

Doesn't that assume that the only place you get educated is in school? Do you believe that is the case?

 

 

And I was curious.

What if schools tested children every year from kindergarten - 6th grade, and if children tested high enough(I'm talking very high.)

 

What are you testing for? The ability to pass tests?

 

Why stop at 6th grade? Some people are late developers.

 

 

Like say a school had a kid one year who tested high enough. He would be able to decide, without parental approval, to go to the government run school.

You want to allow a ten year old to decide their future? You are assuming a strong correlation between psychological maturity and test passing ability.

 

 

Failing kids get kicked out.

 

 

That will do wonders for their self esteem.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Argent

[Ten oz]

I am not a parent. I do not have grade school children. My view is from the outside looking in and not vice versa. The biggest problem I see with K-12 education is parental interference over subject matter. You have parents who don't feel sex education should be taught, that evolution must be countered by intelligent design, teach a foriegn lanuage is unpatriotic, history promotes white guilt, and etc, etc, etc. There is not universal standard accepted that our educational systems have to build a syllabus for each grade level from. Too many parents are more concerned with controlling what their children know than they are with the extent that their children know. No amount of standardized testing can get around the daily manipulation parents have over the system.

 

Parents also manipulate the money. Parents seek out neighborhoods that have "better" schools. Even going to city and county meets to have zoning altered to include or exclude specific addresses. This manipulation impacts home values and the amount of money individual schools receive. For example, the town I grew up in had 4 High Schools. All 4 were basically the same. They were all cookie cutter builds and basically identical is size and etc. One of the 4 was in a very well to do neighborhood. That school had the least number of students. During the housing collaspe the city needed money so it decided to close the High School in the well to do neighborhood. It made sense to close that one because it had the least students. The parents complained to the school board. After a protracted fight the city agreed to close the High School in the worst part of town and leave the well to do school. Initially the claim was that the half empty school in the nicer neighborhood had better facilities and would be better at accommodating new students. Then the following year th city, at the request of residents in the neighborhood, rezoned the commercial sections around the well to do High School. That created vehical restrictions, limited thru traffic ability, and commercial vehicle (buses) access around the school. As a result the city was unable to move any additional student to the school. So the other High Schools in town had to take all the overflow students from the close school. It was a dirty trick. They kept their school on the promise they'd take students and then logistically made it impossible to take new students once the school was off the chopping block.

 

So to improve education, in my opinion, we need to change the culture of parenting.

[Delta1212]

Ok, well, as stated above, having a government program to emancipate and then, from the parents' perspective, essentially kidnap 10-11-year-olds seems like a recipe for disaster no matter how academically competent they are. This also feels like an attempt to improve the education of the group of people who least need help: Those who do really well in the current schooling system.

 

I think you'd also find that your school would still be dominated by people whose parents have money. Test scores are, broadly, a function of ability + resources to prepare with. Those with no ability won't test especially well even with resources backing them, but those with ability and no resources to learn also won't do well. So you'd wind up mostly with the smartest rich kids in your school, exactly the ones who don't need added help.

 

Education reform needs to focus on raising the prospects of the students that are not already succeeding. That means tackling poverty, improving access to educational resources in areas that don't have them. Increasing both quantity and quality of teachers and reducing or eliminating financial hurtles to secondary education. And probably also putting a renewed focus on technical schools and apprenticeships. There are a lot of good jobs that "require" a college degree that don't actually require a college degree because

[Raider5678]

I am not a parent. I do not have grade school children. My view is from the outside looking in and not vice versa. The biggest problem I see with K-12 education is parental interference over subject matter. You have parents who don't feel sex education should be taught, that evolution must be countered by intelligent design, teach a foriegn lanuage is unpatriotic, history promotes white guilt, and etc, etc, etc. There is not universal standard accepted that our educational systems have to build a syllabus for each grade level from. Too many parents are more concerned with controlling what their children know than they are with the extent that their children know. No amount of standardized testing can get around the daily manipulation parents have over the system.

 

Parents also manipulate the money. Parents seek out neighborhoods that have "better" schools. Even going to city and county meets to have zoning altered to include or exclude specific addresses. This manipulation impacts home values and the amount of money individual schools receive. For example, the town I grew up in had 4 High Schools. All 4 were basically the same. They were all cookie cutter builds and basically identical is size and etc. One of the 4 was in a very well to do neighborhood. That school had the least number of students. During the housing collaspe the city needed money so it decided to close the High School in the well to do neighborhood. It made sense to close that one because it had the least students. The parents complained to the school board. After a protracted fight the city agreed to close the High School in the worst part of town and leave the well to do school. Initially the claim was that the half empty school in the nicer neighborhood had better facilities and would be better at accommodating new students. Then the following year th city, at the request of residents in the neighborhood, rezoned the commercial sections around the well to do High School. That created vehical restrictions, limited thru traffic ability, and commercial vehicle (buses) access around the school. As a result the city was unable to move any additional student to the school. So the other High Schools in town had to take all the overflow students from the close school. It was a dirty trick. They kept their school on the promise they'd take students and then logistically made it impossible to take new students once the school was off the chopping block.

 

So to improve education, in my opinion, we need to change the culture of parenting.

That is very well put.

 

Honestly, I think they should just teach secular views of everything. This would probably only conflict with sex ed, some history, and a little bit of science. When the kid get's home, let the parents teach them otherwise if they don't agree. Sexual education does teach about sex but kids morals taught by their parents seem to prevail over the schools policy "have as much sex as you like, but use protection" because I don't see everyone sleeping around with everyone. Then again, I come from a pretty conservative neighborhood. History, is history. My mom doesn't believe that a volcano erupting caused a global winter(1816) because apparently that's ungodly. Which is dumb. I don't particularly believe the big bang caused it self, but that God caused it, but that's a personal choice. When in class, I answer with what the class wants me to answer. I separate what I believe to what I should know. Even if I don't believe in aliens, or the big bang theory, or evolution, I still engage in conversations about them and interesting concepts simply because I should know, and it's something to talk about. I think parents should just do the same, so that the kid can get a good education with out the parent's trying to change what he's learning.

 

But, I do know that my school has a lot of policies the parents absolutely detest. From accepting gays and lesbians to transgender kids to forcing christian kids to pretend to be muslims for a day(Actually, I agree on this. This is bull shit. If we took muslim kids and forced them to pretend to be Christians and have them pray to god rather then Allah, there would be national disagrement. But making christian kids and Catholics to say prayers through out the day to Allah is perfectly acceptable because we have to "accept others" is total bull crap.) So the parental control isn't total and complete. I think it's more with funding that parents have more control.

Ok, well, as stated above, having a government program to emancipate and then, from the parents' perspective, essentially kidnap 10-11-year-olds seems like a recipe for disaster no matter how academically competent they are. This also feels like an attempt to improve the education of the group of people who least need help: Those who do really well in the current schooling system.

 

I think you'd also find that your school would still be dominated by people whose parents have money. Test scores are, broadly, a function of ability + resources to prepare with. Those with no ability won't test especially well even with resources backing them, but those with ability and no resources to learn also won't do well. So you'd wind up mostly with the smartest rich kids in your school, exactly the ones who don't need added help.

 

Education reform needs to focus on raising the prospects of the students that are not already succeeding. That means tackling poverty, improving access to educational resources in areas that don't have them. Increasing both quantity and quality of teachers and reducing or eliminating financial hurtles to secondary education. And probably also putting a renewed focus on technical schools and apprenticeships. There are a lot of good jobs that "require" a college degree that don't actually require a college degree because

Not forcing kids to go. Their choice. And I'm more along the lines of kids who belong in college rather then high school type of smart. I know a kid who was doing trigonometry on his own in 6th grade. He taught me the law of cosines. He was very smart, and wasn't extremely rich. Maybe he had the internet as a resource, and maybe that put him above other kids, but I also know he was constantly at the library and places like that teaching himself things. He was also incredibly logical, and seemed to make better decisions then most adults, and I picked up a lot of flaws in most people's thinking from things he said. Like that we're way too closed-minded, we believe things too easily without knowing for sure, and we always seem to believe we can't be wrong. Although I don't think I ever managed to point out he was wrong. But anyways, back on track. I know that kid didn't have anywhere near the ability to go to his full potential because our school had no gifted and talented program.(I'm in a different school now.) I would also focus the tests more on the ability aspect rather then how good they are at math or something. Take for example long multiplication. Some kids may only be able to do two or three digit numbers because that's all they taught. This kid was able to expand the concept on his own and multiply much long numbers. Now I know rich kids might be smarter and maybe will have an advantage, but it doesn't mean poor kids can't get in.

 

As for the idea of not helping those who are doing well, I don't fully agree. I do agree we should help those not doing well, but just because someone is working hard and getting things done doesn't mean they shouldn't deserve anything. As for financial hurdles for secondary education, that's what I was thinking more years to high school that allowed you to specialize in a certain area that jobs say you require would help a lot with that. Because they wouldn't have to pay for an education that they needed, they just needed to choose it.

[Phi for All]

I like the concept of a well-developed national core curriculum that everyone (administrators, legislators, parents, teachers, students) is responsible for making successful, and is paid for by public support alone. I like what France does as well, making it illegal to charge for teaching this core to remove support for private schooling, so the wealthy are forced to support the schools everyone attends.

 

Sometimes choice is not the point, and never has been.

[Ten oz]

I like the concept of a well-developed national core curriculum that everyone (administrators, legislators, parents, teachers, students) is responsible for making successful, and is paid for by public support alone. I like what France does as well, making it illegal to charge for teaching this core to remove support for private schooling, so the wealthy are forced to support the schools everyone attends.

 

Sometimes choice is not the point, and never has been.

In this case choice as it has been applied is very self serving. Not just that but it is cynical and contradictory towards the principle most share with regards to everyone being able to succeed on their own efforts. We say success is about hardwork and personal effort yet many parents bend over backwards to get their child every possible benefit and perk while purposely pushing back other peoples children. Despite hardwork and anybody can do anything rhetoric many parents by their actions seem convinced that there are only so many "good" jobs to go around and the competition of capitalism starts at preschool. We do not have a nation of citizens who mutually desire a national core curriculum that services everybody. Many prefer the system we have that allows one to pay for better, segregate out undesirables, and prompt ones self interests above that of others.

[swansont]

Funding is a big problem. As long as schools are locally funded, there will be a huge disparity in education quality from one location to another. I don't know if fixing that is the best way to fix overall education, but's it's a big issue.

[Raider5678]

I like the concept of a well-developed national core curriculum that everyone (administrators, legislators, parents, teachers, students) is responsible for making successful, and is paid for by public support alone. I like what France does as well, making it illegal to charge for teaching this core to remove support for private schooling, so the wealthy are forced to support the schools everyone attends.

 

Sometimes choice is not the point, and never has been.

I honestly have no problem with privately funded schools.

The wealthy still have to pay a school tax, and then they don't send their kid there. So effectively they're donating money to that school without the school having to spend it on a child.

If two parents spend time to work hard and gain money so that they can send their child to a good public school so that he may have the best life possible, why do you paint that as an evil? I thought people attempted to succeed so they could give their families the best life possible. That's what I would do if that private school helped a child I had(I don't have any.).

Funding is a big problem. As long as schools are locally funded, there will be a huge disparity in education quality from one location to another. I don't know if fixing that is the best way to fix overall education, but's it's a big issue.

It is, and I get that.

But I'm not sure how one would go about fixing that.

[Ten oz]

I honestly have no problem with privately funded schools.

The wealthy still have to pay a school tax, and then they don't send their kid there. So effectively they're donating money to that school without the school having to spend it on a child.

They get tax credits for sending their kids to private schools.

[Delta1212]

Keep in mind that our new Education Secretary is pushing for a school voucher program that would essentially give money to parents to go to whatever school they wanted to send their child to, which effectively means that wealthy parents would get a subsidy for the private schools they're already sending their kids to at the expense of the public schools.

 

It might open up the number of people who can then afford to send their kids to private school, but that either means that the price just gets driven up with the higher demand or more private schools open up to accommodate the demand, further draining public school funds.

 

 

In effect, if the program supported by the current administration gets turned into law, wealthy parents who send their children to private school will no longer be paying any taxes toward public education for everyone else and may even wind up netting a subsidy to help pay for their child to attend private school at tax payer expense.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Delta1212

[Raider5678]

In this case choice as it has been applied is very self serving. Not just that but it is cynical and contradictory towards the principle most share with regards to everyone being able to succeed on their own efforts. We say success is about hardwork and personal effort yet many parents bend over backwards to get their child every possible benefit and perk while purposely pushing back other peoples children. Despite hardwork and anybody can do anything rhetoric many parents by their actions seem convinced that there are only so many "good" jobs to go around and the competition of capitalism starts at preschool. We do not have a nation of citizens who mutually desire a national core curriculum that services everybody. Many prefer the system we have that allows one to pay for better, segregate out undesirables, and prompt ones self interests above that of others.

This kind of thinking makes it harder for me to get into college.

Because Asian parents typically spend a lot of time with their kids working hard to make them smarter and to learn, we get 140 point penalty on our SAT scores when colleges consider us. Because "it's unfair" to black kids and hispanics because their parents don't spend as much time with them.

So it usually equals out in the end on the number of Asians and Hispanics and Latinos who get into college.

But does that really seem that fair? I mean, I know it makes the numbers even, but it makes us have to work harder to get into college, or have an edge on the competition.

Additionally, Blacks get an an additional 310 points to their SAT scores because they're black when colleges consider them. So if a Latino male scored 1200, I'd have to score 1650(which I can't) on the SAT to be on equal footing with him.

So this type of thinking results in more equal numbers in college so that the appearance of fairness is there. Yet I'm Asian, so maybe I'm extremely biased, but I think this is unfair.

 

So I think if parents wish to work with their child it shouldn't penalize them for being good parents. Because that's the counter effect of what you are saying.

Keep in mind that our new Education Secretary is pushing for a school voucher program that would essentially give money to parents to go to whatever school they wanted to send their child to, which effectively means that wealthy parents would get a subsidy for the private schools they're already sending their kids to at the expense of the public schools.

 

It might open up the number of people who can then afford to send their kids to private school, but that either means that the price just gets driven up with the higher demand or more private schools open up to accommodate the demand, further draining public school funds.

 

 

In effect, if the program supported by the current administration gets turned into law, wealthy parents who send their children to private school will no longer be paying any taxes toward public education for everyone else and may even wind up netting a subsidy to help pay for their child to attend private school at tax payer expense.

Well I can see the wrongness in that.

[Delta1212]

It is, and I get that.

But I'm not sure how one would go about fixing that.

One potential solution is to have each town pay into a state fund for education and then divvy it up between each district on a per student basis.

[Phi for All]

In this case choice as it has been applied is very self serving. Not just that but it is cynical and contradictory towards the principle most share with regards to everyone being able to succeed on their own efforts. We say success is about hardwork and personal effort yet many parents bend over backwards to get their child every possible benefit and perk while purposely pushing back other peoples children. Despite hardwork and anybody can do anything rhetoric many parents by their actions seem convinced that there are only so many "good" jobs to go around and the competition of capitalism starts at preschool. We do not have a nation of citizens who mutually desire a national core curriculum that services everybody. Many prefer the system we have that allows one to pay for better, segregate out undesirables, and prompt ones self interests above that of others.

 

I don't think the "bootstrap pull-up" is a sound argument until you do as much as you can to remove circumstance of birth from the equation. A publicly funded core curriculum supported by all goes a long way to leveling the playing field.

 

And I never said people couldn't use their wealth to give their children more education. I'm mainly interested in a common starting place for all with regard to preparing their own potential.

 

Funding is a big problem. As long as schools are locally funded, there will be a huge disparity in education quality from one location to another. I don't know if fixing that is the best way to fix overall education, but's it's a big issue.

 

Another good reason for a national core. The efficiency of administering such a system would free up funds needed elsewhere in the system.

 

I honestly have no problem with privately funded schools.

The wealthy still have to pay a school tax, and then they don't send their kid there. So effectively they're donating money to that school without the school having to spend it on a child.

If two parents spend time to work hard and gain money so that they can send their child to a good public school so that he may have the best life possible, why do you paint that as an evil? I thought people attempted to succeed so they could give their families the best life possible. That's what I would do if that private school helped a child I had(I don't have any.).

It is, and I get that.

But I'm not sure how one would go about fixing that.

 

What they're effectively doing is diluting the system. Their resources go towards the private schools, which have to show a profit (indeed, whose primary aim is to show a profit). They now want vouchers to remove yet more funding from the public system. They're missing the whole point of education in their efforts to make money. This should be about educating our children, nothing more, and for that you need a solution that isn't profit based.

 

And I've just suggested how to fix it. Put all our resources into a single education system designed to produce the world's greatest students. Kennedy encouraged us to go to the moon, this new education system could encourage us to... be very smart?

[CharonY]

Funding is a big problem. As long as schools are locally funded, there will be a huge disparity in education quality from one location to another. I don't know if fixing that is the best way to fix overall education, but's it's a big issue.

 

I agree, it seems to be a huge issue. There are huge discrepancies of student scores just coming from different schools and generally they correlate with how wealthy the respective district is (due to vast differences in property taxes). Even things like providing cheaper or free school meals has a huge impact.

 

 

 

 

And I've just suggested how to fix it. Put all our resources into a single education system designed to produce the world's greatest students. Kennedy encouraged us to go to the moon, this new education system could encourage us to... be very smart?

 

It is unlikely that a single system would fly in the US, as K12 school is managed on the state level. But I agree that at least on the state level a more even distribution of funding is desired. In fact, I would suggest that in poor areas more funding should be allocated as the benefit would outweigh the benefits of making good schools marginally better.

 

As a whole I don't think focusing on producing the best students is the most important goal (as compared to whom?). From a societal point of view raising the average, especially by elevating low performers seems to be a better solution to social issues.

[Ten oz]

This kind of thinking makes it harder for me to get into college.

Because Asian parents typically spend a lot of time with their kids working hard to make them smarter and to learn, we get 140 point penalty on our SAT scores when colleges consider us. Because "it's unfair" to black kids and hispanics because their parents don't spend as much time with them.

So it usually equals out in the end on the number of Asians and Hispanics and Latinos who get into college.

But does that really seem that fair? I mean, I know it makes the numbers even, but it makes us have to work harder to get into college, or have an edge on the competition.

Additionally, Blacks get an an additional 310 points to their SAT scores because they're black when colleges consider them. So if a Latino male scored 1200, I'd have to score 1650(which I can't) on the SAT to be on equal footing with him.

So this type of thinking results in more equal numbers in college so that the appearance of fairness is there. Yet I'm Asian, so maybe I'm extremely biased, but I think this is unfair.

 

I wasn't referring to college nor was I saying parents shouldn't do all they can for their kids. Rather I was saying we, as a society, should admit that how much is done for kids matters and try to have basic standards for all.

 

As for the handicaps you are describing I don't know what you are talking about. Obviously private institutions have different policies and different states have different policies. Do you have a citiation for what you are specific referencing?

[CharonY]

I wasn't referring to college nor was I saying parents shouldn't do all they can for their kids. Rather I was saying we, as a society, should admit that how much is done for kids matters and try to have basic standards for all.

 

As for the handicaps you are describing I don't know what you are talking about. Obviously private institutions have different policies and different states have different policies. Do you have a citiation for what you are specific referencing?

 

To add to the parents bit: if that was to be considered, then low-income parents with low education would be in a double-bind, even at K12 level. Often they have to work more and thus having less time to spend on their children (and may not be able to assist as well, too). On top they can only afford to live in an area where the school is underfunded.

[swansont]

 

It is, and I get that.

But I'm not sure how one would go about fixing that.

 

 

National funding instead of local goes a long way.

[Ten oz]

 

To add to the parents bit: if that was to be considered, then low-income parents with low education would be in a double-bind, even at K12 level. Often they have to work more and thus having less time to spend on their children (and may not be able to assist as well, too). On top they can only afford to live in an area where the school is underfunded.

Which in one of the reasons why we should work to have no underfunded schools. In addition to that childcare for working parents is a serious issue that various politicians flirt with tackling but never seem to get it on to the main stage of actionable policies.

[Phi for All]

It is unlikely that a single system would fly in the US, as K12 school is managed on the state level. But I agree that at least on the state level a more even distribution of funding is desired. In fact, I would suggest that in poor areas more funding should be allocated as the benefit would outweigh the benefits of making good schools marginally better.

So you want to keep the state level system that ensures we can't have a single, nationally funded basic education? I suggest it wouldn't fly because you're keeping it's wings clipped.

 

As a whole I don't think focusing on producing the best students is the most important goal (as compared to whom?). From a societal point of view raising the average, especially by elevating low performers seems to be a better solution to social issues.

And I think the only way to make it fly is if it has a national support, and one of the best ways to get that is to make it an American thing to do. Competition is a huge motivator for many, and while the program can easily be tailored for custom solutions to rural and urban, wealthy and poor problems, I think the concept of our schools supporting the best students is something we could be extremely proud of as a nation.

[Ten oz]

So you want to keep the state level system that ensures we can't have a single, nationally funded basic education? I suggest it wouldn't fly because you're keeping it's wings clipped.

 

And I think the only way to make it fly is if it has a national support, and one of the best ways to get that is to make it an American thing to do. Competition is a huge motivator for many, and while the program can easily be tailored for custom solutions to rural and urban, wealthy and poor problems, I think the concept of our schools supporting the best students is something we could be extremely proud of as a nation.

I agree but we are currently moving in the opposite direction sadly.

[CharonY]

So you want to keep the state level system that ensures we can't have a single, nationally funded basic education? I suggest it wouldn't fly because you're keeping it's wings clipped.

 

And I think the only way to make it fly is if it has a national support, and one of the best ways to get that is to make it an American thing to do. Competition is a huge motivator for many, and while the program can easily be tailored for custom solutions to rural and urban, wealthy and poor problems, I think the concept of our schools supporting the best students is something we could be extremely proud of as a nation.

 

 

I think it is structurally close to impossible to relegate the rights to the federal level. It would already be a struggle to transfer responsibility to the state level (which I would agree, would be a good first step). That being said, I am not even sure which large countries do not have some level of decentralization of the education system.

 

Also, I am not sure whether a central governance would be an improvement per se, as it would depend a lot on how it is actually implemented. I am not entirely sure whether e.g. state-level governance with additional federal funds would be vastly different.

Edited March 21, 2017 by CharonY

[Raider5678]

I wasn't referring to college nor was I saying parents shouldn't do all they can for their kids. Rather I was saying we, as a society, should admit that how much is done for kids matters and try to have basic standards for all.

 

As for the handicaps you are describing I don't know what you are talking about. Obviously private institutions have different policies and different states have different policies. Do you have a citiation for what you are specific referencing?

https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asians

 

There are a fair amount of other studies and sources that have found the same thing, but this one sums it up pretty well.

So you want to keep the state level system that ensures we can't have a single, nationally funded basic education? I suggest it wouldn't fly because you're keeping it's wings clipped.

 

And I think the only way to make it fly is if it has a national support, and one of the best ways to get that is to make it an American thing to do. Competition is a huge motivator for many, and while the program can easily be tailored for custom solutions to rural and urban, wealthy and poor problems, I think the concept of our schools supporting the best students is something we could be extremely proud of as a nation.

I agree.

It's easier to get Americans to support "Make the smartest students in the world!" then "Make our kids average grade above average!"

[Sensei]

What would be the best way to give people a better education?

Lessons shouldn't be boring. Boring lessons discourage kids from learning.

 

Teacher should love teaching. Not treat school as gulag.

Just because he/she didn't find any better paid job.

 

Like extending school through the summer,

No. There is time for work, and there is time for vacation.

 

(focusing on the United States.)?

Almost every time I see some US movie about kids in school, it's focused on football, baseball or basketball..

Quote from any such movie "Trainer, I beg, you can't fire me from the team! I will lose scholarship and won't be able go to collage"..

(I was not in school for dozen years, but never heard about somebody here receiving scholarship for just being in team of players of any sport)

Isn't "promotion" of sportsmen and cheerleaders as 1st league of scholar society.. ?

At the same time nerds, geeks, etc. actually the smartest students in school, are showed as freaks and losers..

[Raider5678]

Almost every time I see some US movie about kids in school, it's focused on football, baseball or basketball..

Quote from any such movie "Trainer, I beg, you can't fire me from the team! I will lose scholarship and won't be able go to collage"..

(I was not in school for dozen years, but never heard about somebody here receiving scholarship for just being in team of players of any sport)

Isn't "promotion" of sportsmen and cheerleaders as 1st league of scholar society.. ?

At the same time nerds, geeks, etc. actually the smartest students in school, are showed as freaks and losers..

You'll find the majority of the modern movies(mind you, directed by those successful nerdy kids) paint the jocks as dumb.

Which seems about right to me.