Society

[sr.vinay]

I don't like some aspects of the society. For example, the way education is handled. Education is basically learning something we want to, out of choice. After a certain degree of compulsory education, which I understand is sort of necessary, shouldn't one be allowed to freely choose what he wants to study?

And, is it a waste of time to fret and try to do something against some aspects of the society we live in?

For example, trying to change the general outlook on something as basic as scientific temperament?

[Leader Bee]

After a certain level of education -possibly a year or two into secondary school, when more advanced subjects have been taught and the student has had time to get a feel or not for whether it will interest them, then the student should be given the chance to either drop or continue in a subject.

Until that point, all subjects should be compulsary.

 

once the above is met I believe the student should be given the opportunity to focus on the subjects which they enjoy and excel at.

 

Learning maths when you have proved for years that you are no good at it and certainly don't enjoy it certainly seems like a waste of time when say the student enjoys and actually does well in areas like geography or science, dropping other subjects will give more time and focus to the subjects someone might actually be good at.

 

Certainly there will be individuals who will take advantage of this system only to get "a free period" and this should be monitored carefully.

 

A system like that would benefit some more than others, while for the ones who take advantage it would only be detrimental. The ones who actually want to learn it would allow them to excel in their chosen subject instead of wasting time with whatever their brain just doesn't comprehend.

[sr.vinay]

Exactly. People live in their own small bubbles they don't want to come out of.

They don't get the whole point of education!

[Leader Bee]

Without a multispectral education system though it would probably limit the amount of industries a country could produce employees for. Say out of 100% of a population 70% want to go into animal care, another 20% wants to go into scientific research/engineering applications and the last 10% wants to do something like financial services then the economy for the country is going to be severely compromised when they don't have the individuals to competently work in those fields.

 

It might mean contracting those jobs out to foreign workers but you can see that people will want to learn all the "nice" subjects like arts, film & television, music etc ( some will have an inherant interest in other subjects) but as a child you don't realise how that could be detrimental and an education system that focuses on the wants of a nation might be setting future generations up for a messed up economy - if nobody wanted to get into the health system then we'd be desperately messed up for example.

[HOMER-16]

Interesting thoughts.

 

But Bee makes a good point.

 

Though instead of having the student choose those classes most interesting to them, why not just make every class interesting?

 

There are some schools that are considering video games to enhance learning by making the classes actually fun for most students. And generally, when one is interested, one is more likely to learn.

[Genecks]

I only feel that the varying forms of forced education I have endured have slowed me down. I will admit that I had a large interest in engineering and physics as a child. It progressed into a like for computer science, because computers and the Internet provided me with free tools to learn and work with. However, as I went to college, I decided to get involved in neuroscience.

 

Did secondary school (American) help me?

For the most part, no.

 

I simply remember a bunch of ignorant educators who misled me most of the way. I seriously wanted to go back to my old highschool and call the teachers ignorant pieces of trash, but unfortunately there are security guards all over these days. They seem to actively walk the halls.

 

I would have to say that what influenced me in my later decisions was the fact that I had a psychiatrist whom went to the University of Chicago. I had sessions with her for about 10 to 12 years. I was largely interested in psychology before I hit college. I was diagnoses with ADHD as a child back in... maybe 1992 (I believe ADHD is linked to stimulation and arousal deficiencies). It's more than that, but I don't want to disclose that information. However, after studying psychology and biology, I began to move toward neuroscience. It offered me the ability to involve my past loves with my current (then) loves.

 

I would have stuck with engineering if my parents would have bought me supplies and books. They never wanted to do that. Both had college degrees (associates), but they didn't care about me wanting to educate myself nor advance myself. It was a ridiculous situation, and after I got my associates degree, I voiced my opinions to them how I thought they were both ignorant pieces of crap. At best, I'm not addicted to anything, and I'm still in one piece. I guess they did their legal duty. They could have been better parents, to say the least. After getting my A.S. degree, I figured out why I constantly got strept throat as a child, too.

 

If I had been guided and shaped right, I would have more than likely been on of those kids in his junior year of university when turning 18. These days I help my siblings, because it would appear my parents lacked the ability.

 

Secondary education is a prison for children. That's what it is. If there are educated parents who wanted educated children, then there is the possibility those children will have better access to educational resources and recreation for their psyche. I didn't learn about interlibrary loan until 18. I didn't know I could continue my mathematics learning by going to a college library (I transferred to an alternative high school). I didn't really understand that there was a medical library in my town with neuroscience and biology books. I didn't know I could walk in and start reading. I thought those things were for students, and I would be stopped from going in. I was very ignorant and raised ignorant.

 

Even in college/university, you have to study things you don't want to study. Social science courses and humanity/arts courses are often required for science majors. Did I have any interest in them? The art classes? The history class? NO!

 

I had an interest in economics, which I appreciate, since the world runs on money. I wouldn't bother with government politics, since they are ad-hoc.

 

I don't care for what people call "well-rounded" education. It's B.S.. It's a way to get educators money.

 

Exactly. People live in their own small bubbles they don't want to come out of.

They don't get the whole point of education!

 

I firmly believe that is an old, classist argument generated by the higher classes.

Look at the fact that these annoying required courses that don't relate to the major still exist in college!

What's with that? Hmm? Seriously.

 

It costs money to take those courses, too. It's like the biggest ripoff.

 

In reference to highschool:

I'll admit that taking acting back in high school helped me remember large amounts of information in a short sitting. Art class didn't help me too much. I like being able to draw a bit better than the usual scientist. Theatre tech didn't help me too much. Reading Shakespeare was a serious waste of my time, especially when I was taking acting at the same time. I was critical enough to say, "Shakespeare sucks. Nice costumes, but these scripts are archaic and of little value to me." I thought black and white acting without speech was some of the most impressive stuff in the world. Impressive blocking and body/facial expressions. I also love method acting. I can be an effective liar and illusionist: That's what I got out of high school education.

 

A lot of problems exist in secondary education. I've recently hypothesized there are a general amount of idiots in these secondary educational institutions. What do I mean? I mean people like... 2.0/2.5 out of 4.0 GPAs. You know... people who got Cs in university/college... teachers who weren't the brightest as students, perhaps as teachers, too. So, we've got a bunch of teachers who are not too intelligent. As such, they cannot effectively prepare the youth nor bring the best out of them. It's a sad situation. College is different, because it actually has people who had to stay above 3.0 GPAs in order to be educators.

 

Plato believed art was crap. Plato desired scientific realism.

Aristotle tried to support the arts, thus overturning Plato.

I'm more of a neo-platonist.

 

It is because of the failing of the public education system that I believe that the Internet can be an effective tool to reach and teach younger generations. I have little to no interest in the public educational system these days. If you look at the statistics, more students are being home-schooled and home-schooling themselves. They've begun the practice of being an autodidact before hitting college.

 

And, is it a waste of time to fret and try to do something against some aspects of the society we live in? For example, trying to change the general outlook on something as basic as scientific temperament?

 

Yes, it's a waste. I believe that here in America a large percentage of Ph. D holders have parents whom earned graduate degrees or at least bachelors degrees. That's what I got from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) reports. For what I've evaluated, parents are the more determining factor if a child will be successful in education. Guess who can be with the child more than the individual teacher? The parent.

 

Parents are more of a determining factor than teachers. And then you have society. You have a lot more nursing students these days and people whom want to be doctors. I don't know if that's TV or the economy.

 

I still want to study engineering, physics, etc... I don't have the time nor money to fully do those things right now. But I suspect I could learn them on my own. I'm getting use to the university system, so I could probably take the classes and have transcripts to prove knowledge somewhere down the line. I don't know. That feels like I'm giving people money. I'd probably save a bunch of money for just sitting in on a class and taking exams with/without letting the professor know I'm not enrolled.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Genecks

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd have to agree that the "well-rounded" education is too round. I think it's important, but that it's overdone. I think schools should do more to foster a love of learning in their students (and the parents should do the same).

 

I think it's pretty ridiculous we don't have a proper free, online curriculum for education at all levels. I mean, with just a fraction of the cost of textbooks bought by students, we could have a pretty nice online education. It wouldn't surprise me if in addition to being cheaper it were also far better, considering we'd have our best and brightest writing the curriculum, rather than a bunch of teachers who may or may not know more than their students. It could even still be done in childcare centers schools with a teacher to supervise and answer questions.