<p>This was my high school in a nutshell and even describes some circles of my college, unfortunately. There are many children who expect decent grades to be handed to them and it is terribly unfortunate. However, those kids will flunk later in life by never getting a decent job or salary, so I suppose some sort of poetic justice could be found; that is assuming that the typical overbearing parent doesn’t support them for the rest of their life.</p>
<p>@chaosakita I’m a kid who failed to get in anywhere but a state flagship due to poor guidance during the application process and the Swiss cheese education that hit me hard when grades mattered most. Reading and studying has turned into a hobby for me and I frankly want to transfer into a better school such as Vanderbilt (Goes to Vandy… thinks he’s a bad student #collegeconfidentialproblems). I’m tired of being surrounded by students whose only motivation seems to be getting a degree just so they can say they have one so they can get a job. Also, housing is a looming issue. After freshman and sophomore year, housing isn’t guaranteed and I would have to rent an apartment nearby.</p>
<p>it’s not the school system as much as it is culture. all these kids dont grow up ingrained with extremely high value placed on education. and of the ones who do, many dont actually internalise it or place it very high on priority for a great number of different reasons. cant blame it just on schools when its a pretty complicated issue. youd have to change the entire american culture completely, which just happens to tie in with a ton of envirosocioeconopolitical etc factors</p>
<p>Well, not to start a war, but I do think it’s part of the political agenda to feed kids the bull the America is number one, blah, blah, blah.</p>
<p>Most kids don’t know how hard it is going to be for them to eke out a toe-hold in this new world order. If they did, they would take their prep time more seriously.</p>
<p>But kids can be engaged, but when they’re more valuable to the powers that be in corporate culture as impressionable consumers than hard working nerds, they will be sold that image day and night and conform to it, except for some prescient few.</p>
<p>I’ve always been somewhat anti-conservative, anti-American exceptionalism, but I never felt that that was a strong influence on education (maybe it’s because I’m in Massachusetts where we’re a bit more progressive). </p>
<p>The culture is big aspect of the issue. I think I mentioned at some point that everyone seems too pre-occupied with pop culture and somehow being well educated still isn’t cool. Anti-intellectualism is nothing new, but it’s a problem, and it has gotten worse.</p>
<p>bunch of nerds in this thread. all of you are crazy for thinking learning is fun</p>
<p>Is it that much different in college?</p>
<p>Probably most college students are looking at college attendance as a means to a credential which will get them a better job than otherwise. Note the heavy emphasis on pre-professional majors like business at schools other than the most selective. Even many students majoring in liberal arts subjects are doing so for pre-professional reasons, such as biology as a pre-med, English or political science as a pre-law (though such majors are not required by the professional schools), economics as a substitute for business, math or statistics for finance, anything at elite schools for elite jobs (investment banking, management consulting). Of course, the high cost of attending college tends to push pre-professional preparation to greater importance than it was in the past.</p>
<p>Yes, there are some who love to learn and whose dream path is to do a PhD in his/her favorite subject, then go into research (possibly academic, or industrial if it exists) in the subject), basically making a job and career out of learning. But that does seem to be unusual.</p>
<p>However, in many subjects, continued learning and self-education of new things that come up in the subject is very important for continued ability to perform in one’s job, even if the job is not research or academic in nature.</p>
<p>And you’re crazy if you don’t think learning is fun. </p>
<p>Socioeconomic barriers do complicate the issue. I live in a poor de-industrialized former mill town and yet, it doesn’t necessarily mean that one can’t tap in to the innate desire to learn that everyone has just because the neighborhood is rough. Not everyone who’s from “the ghetto” in fact ends up staying that way. I’ve seen certain teachers get through to disadvantaged kids. My calculus teacher once mentioned she had gotten a note from a former student of her’s who was going to drop out of high school until she was finally inspired by the pre-calculus class she took with that teacher. However, red tape, and an overemphasis on state standardized test preparation and only asking us to jump through few hoops to magically be well educated prevents progress from happening on a larger scale outside of these nice but yet ultimately meaningless anecdotes that really act as the exceptions that prove the rule. It’s partly the way the system is set up, not just economics, that breeds the apathy towards education in high schools. </p>
<p>On another note, the broken windows theory may also apply here. Low income schools are often in physical disrepair. It’s been shown that simply fixing up a certain abandoned buildings contributes to lower crime rates and the city of New York has been able to use this to their advantage. The same principle should be part of the solution in low income schools. We don’t need flashy projectors, fancy computers, or marble collumns. Just fixing up the halls, classrooms, and cafeteria food so it’s at least comfortably decent could go a long way to making other more substantive changes more effective.</p>
<p>Every poster on this thread has valid points.</p>
<p>Technology has exploded in complexity and in its reaches into our daily lives in the past 150 years. We struggle to cope with this much change in this short (evolutionarily speaking) period of time. We just aren’t wired to deal with the huge amounts of basic knowledge that are necessary to absorb before we can even begin to start learning anything that is “meaningful”. I’m not implying that humans can’t learn more than we think we can, but we really do have much more to learn (call it a core curruculum) before we can move on to anything that is clearly applicable to our life’s work.</p>
<p>So I understand kids who aren’t really motivated. It is a long slog through an increasingly complex curriculum that doesn’t seem to be linked to anything in the real world. Most teens are still fairly concrete animals. Their brains are still developing, and high school chemistry, physics, calc, Shakespeare, poetry, you-name-it isn’t relative to anything they can see. </p>
<p>This isn’t a brand new problem, but by pushing more kids into “college prep” tracks, we’ve forced kids who REALLY aren’t developmentally ready, or intellectually apt, or interested, to take classes they truly don’t want to take. That’s the story in the excellent public schools.<br>
Kids are excited by video games, sports, music and art because it is concrete, has immediate results, and growth is pretty easy to track. Most of the high school curriculum? Not so much.</p>
<p>On the other end of the spectrum are the ready, willing and able kids stuck in failing schools who aren’t offered enough of anything to stimulate them or to get them where they might want to go.</p>
<p>The solution will require a complete rethinking of k-12 education, I think. Kids need to be able to explore a bit more, and to try non college related areas of interest, without being permanently shunted into Vocational Ed. Programs. </p>
<p>One of the worst decisions we made, in the last 40 years, IMO, was to eliminate high school shop, auto, home ec, and other similar requirements. In our district, the only kids who get even a whiff of those classes are those who are bussed daily to the one site in the district where these classes are offered. and I think most kids could profit from those classes, could profit by learning some real world STEM applications, which is really what shop, auto shop, home ec, etc. are.</p>
<p>It wouldn’t hurt to have some more highly capable AP type kids who have a clue how to Fix something, build anything, accomplish something concrete and real. As opposed to attending another SAT camp. ;)</p>
<p>It should go beyond just shop classes and home economics classes. </p>
<p>Some people such as Salman Khan of Khan Academy advocate what’s often referred to as “flipping the classroom.” In such a model, kids would watch lectures online at home and do the homework in class with the help of peers and teachers. The teachers are also given tools to see if the kids are actually watching the lectures and doing the online exercises. Such a model would hopefully eliminate the frustration that leads to avoidance of school work. In today’s model I’ve even found myself avoiding homework some nights just because I was frustrated by not being able to ask anyone how to do it while I’m at home. Flipping the classroom is meant to leave time for more projects in which kids do stuff like building robots, composing music, making software, and participating in debates and discussions. </p>
<p>The Khan Academy model has already been adopted throughout the Los Altos public school district and in several schools throughout California and from what I hear, it’s successful. It’s somewhat radical, but hey, so many here are asking for huge reform.</p>
<p>There used to be a joke that said that if you wanted to stop teenagers from having sex, the best way to do it would be to make sex education a required school course.</p>
<p>The point was that nothing sucks the life out of a subject like teaching it in school.</p>
<p>The members of our species – especially the young ones – are hardwired to learn. Kids want to learn. But they may not want to learn what’s taught in school in the way that it’s taught in school because this type of learning is not natural to human beings.</p>
<p>Think about the way you learned to use your latest electronic device. Did it have any resemblance to the way you learned things in school? If you and your spouse both got your smartphones on the same day, and your spouse became competent in using one in a week, while it took you two weeks, does that mean that your spouse should get a better grade in “Smartphone 101” than you should? And if you now know how to use more features of the smartphone than your spouse does, does that mean that now you’re the person who should get a better grade? And did some outside power inflict smartphone lessons on everyone in your family – including your brother, who could see no point in the lessons because he had decided that he couldn’t afford a smartphone and wasn’t going to buy one? Does anyone who doesn’t anticipate actually using a smartphone in the immediate future go to the trouble of learning how?</p>
<p>And when you need to learn something new – say, how to make attractive tables in Microsoft Word – do you do it by going through a detailed written tutorial on the topic? Some people do. They like that style of learning. But others prefer to learn primarily by experimenting – they fiddle with all the features of Word tables until they’ve figured out how to do the things they want to do. Others like to search the Internet for just the pieces of information they need rather than following an organized tutorial. Still others prefer to learn primarily through one-on-one interaction with other people; they like to ask a lot of questions of people who already know how to work with Word tables. And others like to learn mostly by observation; they want to watch someone else create or modify a Word table before they try to do it themselves.</p>
<p>Maybe if school learning had a closer resemblance to the way people learn things outside of school – and the ways that human beings are hardwired to learn (which may differ from person to person) – students would be more interested in it, and the learning would be more successful.</p>
<p>Regardless, there is still a place for lectures and formal textbooks. After all, that’s how humans communicate, by talking, reading, and writing. It really needs to be a balance between the natural sort of learning you’re advocating and the type of learning in which someone explains things in front of a group of people hopefully taking notes. I’ve found that with the right motivation, I can learn a lot just by listening to a lecture. Not everything is as intuitive as learning how to use your iPhone. Lecturers and textbooks need to be there to provide some perspective as well as a reference later on. Imagine if you had to learn all of math from 1+1 through to differential equations without any lectures or manuals of any kind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would not be surprised if these options (I remember them being available, but not required) were eliminated because they were relatively expensive (very large “lab” (shop) areas and the need for consumables like wood, car parts and fluids, food, etc.), and carried greater safety and liability risks (table saws, car engines and cooling fans, car fluids, stoves, etc. – of the usual high school academic subjects, only chemistry seems to be especially dangerous in this respect).</p>
<p>UCB and Marion, I completely agree with both of you. The hands on courses probably were eliminated because of costs and perceived dangers. I think though, they offered a tangible experience, which was inherently interesting to teens. I don’t believe schools are headed back to auto shops, but I do think kids need to touch, feel, manipulate to learn best.</p>
<p>One of our highly competetive high school’s most popular classes is anatomy and physiology. An extra science, not an AP class, but always packed. Why? Discetions of real frogs, fetal pigs, etc. </p>
<p>Back in the 70’s, everyone in my high school was required to take one shop or home ec class. My husband’s school district required the same. He took a shop class every year. He loved the hands on learning, loved the projects. He’s now a surgeon.</p>
<p>@hiimafrican Are you kidding? Of course I want to learn. But there’s a difference between learning important information and having unneeded knowledge shoved down your throat for years. When I was learning about World War 2 and the things that occurred before that led up to it, I was interested. It was interesting information for me. But give me a break. Science and Math are ridiculous in our school system. Biology was fine. Acceptable. Chemistry and Physics were at first interesting. Then we got deep into the semester. And it was like “Seriously?” Do you know how much information stayed with me in English, History, and a bunch of other elective classes. A LOT of it. How many “good” students can say they kept most of their math and science knowledge (not including people majoring in it). Not that many. Even when I did decided to “learn” some of that ridiculous knowledge. It was never in the classrooms. I had to teach it to myself because most teachers don’t know what they’re doing in those subjects. We are in a new era. As technology changes, society changes, political system changes, WOULDN’T IT MAKE SENSE FOR SCHOOLS TO CHANGE?So get out of here. It’s ridiculous to not see the flaw in the public school system and if you wanna live with your eyes closed, that’s fine by me.</p>
<p>In college, I love that I get to pick most of my classes. I get to choose what I get to learn. And I finally remember what it is to love learning. You obviously don’t know the difference between learning and cramming random facts. One is gone after test day, the other isn’t.</p>
<p>As a highschool student, I must say that it is impossible to delve into this topic accurately by painting such broad strokes. Personally I love learning, I practically read math books for about six hours a day, I started when I realized that my school wasn’t covering most of the standards but now I’m far into college work and looking at Math as my major because of it. Sorry for introversion, but I thought context might be helpful. </p>
<pre><code> Now the thing is; not all students have the same goals. Some are going to become the doctors, scientists, engineers, IT programmers, and teachers of the world while others, well, are headed for a life of crime. It’s a sad fact, but the same trends that you see in the employment world now, will either be maintained or exacerbated. And depending on the options that stuudents want, or the ones that they’ll have they need to be more focused on their academics.
</code></pre>
<p>The problem then is, how to make that clear to them. And that, is a problem for the ages. To all adults out there, ask yourself; where were you when you were there age? If you were doing good then good for you! But the problem is, I’m sure this paradigm of “not wanting to learn and being content with mediochrity” has been around for a while. Now of course, you could say it a million times to them and they would listen to what they need to do for their desired career path. I will be the first one to admit that this motivation needs to be placed in the classes, and my proposition would be a nation wide internship program so that students can see where they want to be, and what they need to do in their education to accomplish it. Or perhaps, alternatively, where they’ll end up if they don’t concentrate. In retrospect, my regrets aren’t what I’ve thought myself but my grades. If I had been more motivated by an internship program, or seeing this site haha, I know that I wouldn’t have slipped. As long as this program, is of course also placed with an education system that can provide for a large amount of highly motivated students, which is what I think it can and is becoming, the K-12 education program can meet/exceed international standards.</p>
<p>I don’t think the problem specifically has to do with the requirements of electives (such as home ec, etc.), but I do agree that learning can be better if a bit more of a hands on approach was introduced. Imagine if students actually had to figure out math equations instead of having them just given to them, and if they were just allowed all the time in the world to figure out a new type of science problem on their own. Nobody bothers though because a) school almost always praises students for doing things with speed and b) students lack patience. Students are frustrated or think they’re “not smart” when faced with a difficult new problem they can’t solve right away, and so many people are preoccupied with grades (rather than learning) they just try to get it over with quickly without understanding a thing. In the book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell argues that being good at math isn’t inherent (how many times have you heard, “oh, he’s a math person”), but has more to do with how much time a person is willing to analyze a problem. Same goes for every subject. Sure, some things come more naturally than others, but nothing is impossible, like some people make it out to be. If schools made students try a more hands-on approach, students would have to understand what they’re doing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel like history is simply there to brainwash students. Just like today, there are so many perspectives in history, and oftentimes school just teaches one perspective. History is truly written by the conquerers. It’s a shame. At the very least, schools should make an effort to give unbiased facts and some diverse primary documents to allow students to form their own analyses and opinions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that culture is the main aspect, but I feel like the school system largely fosters this culture. If you’re going to make students go to a building for eight hours without learning anything productive, of course they’ll be unmotivated and place a low value on education.</p>
<p>I am a college professor, and it is the same problem in college. If I don’t take attendance, after a couple of weeks half of the class doesn’t show up. I try to do exercises and activities in class, watch movies besides the lectures, but some students just don’t care. During a semester I probably get 5 visits in office hours. But at the end of the semester invariably I get a student who tells me they should have gotten an A since their parents are paying $$$ a semester, or who says they didn’t know they were doing badly in class (they would if they showed up to class or checked their grades on blackboard). In the evaluations they complain that they had to actually have to go to class and do the readings to pass (hmm, yes). </p>
<p>I only make an effort for that 1/3 to 1/4 of the class that wants to learn, makes an effort, etc. I have received teaching awards and get pretty good evaluations, with a handful of outliers. I refuse to lower my standards for the “slackers” but it’s depressing when the students and the parents blame it on teachers or professors or their teaching methods when most of the ones who complain barely showed up to class.</p>
<p>Sorry for the rant! I should summarize it saying that even at top ranked colleges many students don’t care about learning, just the grade.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>History is one subject where trying to be “unbiased” may result in an extremely shallow overview, or having to dig way down into the details the way a PhD student would do. And even those levels of coverage would still likely attract criticism if the particular history is politically controversial.</p>