"A student's point of view: Kids don't want to learn" (CNN)

Parent Cafe
61

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps. At the very least though, the students should be told that they’re receiving a biased perspective. Maybe my idea was a bit extreme, but it seems like history teachers are just so sure that their point of view is the right one, which is passed onto the students. I just think that students would be given the chance to explore the possibilities, even if a completely unbiased perception isn’t possible.</p>

<p>@hiimafrican I think what PJLloyd100 was trying to say is that he/she thinks that the current education system focuses on cramming and memorizing instead of actual learning.</p>

62

<p>@hiimafrican I couldn’t read the whole thing. It’s just the same thing over and over again when my point is clear.</p>

<p>Why is it so hard to just have more hands on learning classes that are specific to what people want to do in life. Why do we have to do classes beyond what we actually need to know. I’m majoring in business or economics, and honestly me doing AP Biology (we had to do one AP science class) didn’t really help me. Yes, you like to most subjects in school. That’s good for you. After I finish typing this I’ll go get you a medal. But why should everyone be persecuted for just not liking some subjects. I don’t like science or math (I’m actually really good at math. I just think it’s a waste of my time). </p>

<p>I was one of the lucky ones. My high school had a lot of hands on classes. At first I wanted to become a doctor, so I took Health Science. I learned in that class being in the health industry wasn’t my scene. I went to hotel management next year. It was cool, but wasn’t the best. I then went to Accounting and Business, and I LOVED that class. So interesting. Is it honestly so hard to ask for classes that actually help people in life instead of a bunch of unneeded ones? You’re honestly not very social if you can’t understand the reasons why most people don’t like cramming and memorizing in schools. You sit in your own bubble and think that everyone should be a hardcore studyier like you. And your intelligence is measured by how much you know in school. Anyways, if you think that it’s the students fault that’s cool. I really don’t care. The education system isn’t changing anytime soon anyways. The pathetic class choices and options that no one really wants to do are here to stay. 'MERICA!</p>

<p>And lastly, just like I don’t know you (so my example of you being in your own bubble is probably not accurate) you don’t know me. I’m going to the best public school in my state next semester. I don’t like science, but I do what is required for me to get an A in it. I used to love Math. It was my favorite subject in elementary and middle school cause I was so good at it. But now it’s just boring. The math in accounting is fine for me, but math like Calculus 2 (pray for me, I have to take that this year) is ridiculous. I’m honestly not gonna sit around and try to make my brain remember the things I did in Calculus 2 after that class is over. It’s going straight out of the window when I’m done with this year.</p>

<p>I’m definitely never coming back to the parent forum lol…</p>

63

<p>I am always so conflicted re: the “dates in history” thing. I agree that rote memorization of things without an attempt to contextualize and connect is bad, but I think that the “just teaching dates in history is bad” gets morphed by some students (and, if the actual knowledge of dates, places and geography that my students have is any indication, by some teachers and curriculum designers as well) into “ANY attempt to even talk about dates is bad history that’s about memory and not analysis.” Well, guess what? It’s really hard for students to challenge perspectives and develop their own analyses of events if they don’t have a good sense of the dates and places involved. Furthermore, it is very hard, if not impossible, for students to profitably read histories written in the Renaissance and early modern period (these histories remain valuable primary sources that help us understand how different events were viewed at different points in history and students have to be able to engage these types sources if they want to do “analysis” in their history) if they don’t have a good sense of key dates and how different places relate to each other. It’s not really good enough for them to be able to look things up in the moment and then not remember them either–they need to quickly recall this date/place information as they read in order to be able to read these primary sources critically. </p>

<p>I don’t know how to fix this at the K-12 level–I took the easy way out by becoming a college professor–and I know that it is a tremendous challenge, but it is a problem that we need to continue trying to solve.</p>

64

<p>^^^I was always fascinated with dates. Knowing what year(s) certain events took place has enriched my understanding of history. Visiting museums, battlefields, and other historic sites is much more interesting when I can place certain events in their timeline context.</p>

<p>I agree that some students resort to complaining about memorizing dates when they really are just griping about having to study history. In all my years of taking history in school and then college, I never had a teacher or a professor who just taught by dates. However, the very best of these teachers emphasized the importance of learning dates.</p>

65

<p>He’s right. The majority of kids aren’t there to learn, but to get a degree because that’s what they think will “guarantee” them a good life (never mind that the degree is from for-profit, unaccredited, Podunk U; the mentality stands).</p>

<p>As a result, education has become a poorly functioning bureaucracy that’s directed towards the lowest common denominator. However, this can be overcome if you have a solid teacher, but that’s not always the case, and even if it is, not everyone wil take advantage of the fact. School can give you perspective, but if you want to truly learn something, you have to do the grunt work. It’s like a math class: you get good at solving problems by working them out yourself.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Unfortunately, that’s true even in college. No, Mr. College Curriculum Advisor, I have no interest in forking over tuition for a 2 credit Human Sexuality course. No, I would not prefer to take Feminism in the Middle Ages as an alternative.</p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>True, but I think students have a problem with memorizing dates because we don’t use them to analyze. Teachers often teach us dates for the sake of teaching them. We are never asked how dates apply, but we are only asked what they are. If students were given this chance to analyze, they would realize how times and places are important for themselves.</p>

67

<p>as a student, i can honestly say it’s missing.</p>

<p>teachers often reward those who do well with ec, etc, so:</p>

<p>if you do well, why try? you know you’re going to do well anyway, and as long as you have a 4.0 unweighted, there’s no point in trying.</p>

<p>if you do badly, you know you’ll never be as smart as the top kid in your class. there’s no point in trying, just do w/e you were doing before and have fun in high school.</p>

68

<p>I hear that all the time. I’m not quite at the same level as those at the very top of my high school class (The Ivy Leaguers), but whenever I said I have to try harder or that I will try harder, I’m told “oh, don’t worry you’re fine, I’m sure you’re doing well as it is. Just have fun with high school,” or “You’ll regret it when you’re older and you don’t have fun as a kid.” Same goes for when I say that I plan on avoiding parties in college and that I plan on doing really well so I can get into good grad programs and jobs as well as so I can just get well educated, which is my bigger goal yada yada… </p>

<p>Call me crazy, but you can get a pretty good feeling of accomplishment if they just work really really hard regardless of whether or not you’ve previously been able to get the smart kid grades. Not to mention, spreading work out, and being disciplined has the benefit of letting me relax the nights before tests or at least not stress out with staying up late and studying. No one seems to be teaching good study habits. </p>

<p>In principle we’re supposed to learn from failures, but it seems like failed grades or just lower than average grades are seen as a judgement of innate ability. It’s so unfortunate that when students hit a certain time when they get a bunch of low grades, they see it as a signal to give up instead of a message telling them to do a complete overhaul in their methods so they can really show for what they’ve really got.</p>

69

<p>I am inclined to sympathize with the resentments that the standard school curriculum is too far removed from most students’ life experience. I personally got As in classes I could relate to and a mix of Bs and Cs in subjects that might have just as well been taught in Chinese. </p>

<p>It is not entirely clear to me how society decides what should be “common knowledge.” If studying Shakespeare is so fundamental to our role as educated citizens, why not encourage more students to do college- or doctoral-level work in literature? Why teach chemistry and not geology? Why literature and not sociology? Why should I give a **** about ancient Greek mythology? I’d much rather learn about modern religions, or how to fix my car or navigate the banking and insurance system.</p>

<p>Given that much of the school curriculum seems irrelevant to our lives, I really can’t blame students for not caring. Why should they?</p>

70

<p>To the person who believes that people don’t respect a “love of learning” because they don’t respect when people choose majors like, Art History.</p>

<p>I can understand having a love of learning and taking AH (or whatever) classes to expand one’s horizon. I can see having AH as a minor or second major. I think that people are concerned that those who only major in AH (or other majors that do not often translate well into a job) will have a much harder time finding well-paid employment. </p>

<p>I can remember when my kids were in high school and one of their friends and his mom were at our home. The friend announced that he was going to major in art in college because he liked to draw (he had some talent, but not spectacular). The mom objected. He looked to me for support. I said, “honey, your interest in drawing is a hobby, if you want to minor in art or do it as a second major, then fine. But choose something that’s likely going to lead to employment. If eventually, drawing leads to success, then that’s fine, too.” He’s now a EE grad with an Art minor. He loves his EE job and enjoys illustration for fun. His parents are relieved. lol</p>

71

<p>b@r!um, there is a belief–and maybe it’s not one that you want to subscribe to, but it manifests itself in a lot of conceptions of “what you need to be educated” (at least when it comes to the more humanistic stuff)–that we inherit some sort of tradition or culture and we cannot understand things like why our modern religions engage in or eschew certain practices (in some cases, knowing more ancient forms of mythology can be helpful here!), why we adopted one approach to banking and finance instead of another, etc., etc. unless we understand our historical inheritance. </p>

<p>In my experience, thinking as much as possible about this inherited tradition has given me a great power to understand institutions and, through that understanding, navigate them to my benefit, and (at least in my opinion) better diagnose their problems. Reflecting on how our “tradition” has been constructed and changed over time has been a valuable lesson about the effects that time and place have on perspective and has led me to challenge the idea of simple universals. To be able to understand our grand catalog of allusions (whether they be from Shakespeare or ancient Greek mythology) has given me a sense of independence and power that has helped me be a better global traveler and makes me a better professor. </p>

<p>Now, I certainly understand the practical problems here:
1–I don’t imagine that most people who are teaching history, literature, etc. at the middle and high school level are themselves really equipped with the background OR given appropriate support (via ability to select texts, choose how much time to devote to a topic, get support from principals, etc.) to properly synthesize and contextualize all this information.
2–There’s a LOT of information to be learned, especially now that we are appropriately acknowledging the contributions that previously marginalized groups made to our inherited tradition. The question of what to teach to most benefit students–the whole world? North America? the USA? a particular state? a town or county?–is a legitimate one that has no settled answer.</p>

72

<p>It takes a great teacher to motivate students. Most teachers are good, but it’s hard to find one that motivates you when you need motivation the most at a time that you don’t know you need it. For that season, private, small and expensive K-12 schools should be better for most kids if not all. Too bad I couldn’t afford one though.</p>

73

<p>There is nothing to learn if we don’t see the point. Algebra they try to tell us we use it in RL but students don’t find the point so we just don’t care. Chemistry can be a want-to-learn subject: I had a teacher that wow-ed the student with experiment, and another that was just interesting to learn from (More people got better grades in Science then Math overall at my school). History have some interesting teacher other are just plain (one of the school best teacher is in the S.S department). Of course they blame him for a bad grade but it really their fault. </p>

<p>I know this is in the parent forums but just posting my opinion. </p>

<p>Teachers are really keys to student motivation imo.</p>

74

<p>As a student, I think some kids learn for the sake of learning, others learn because they think they have to, and others choose not to learn at all. In my opinion, the most we can hope for in society is kids that learn because they know education is necessary if one wants to earn a decent living. We can’t expect every student to be passionate in every single subject taught at school. In high school, I read novels for English because I was genuinely interested in reading them. I read my Calculus textbook for the grade. And honestly, I think that’s okay. </p>

<p>We should 1) have plenty of elective options for students so their schedules can include classes that they’re genuinely interested in and 2) stress the long-term importance of core subjects such as Calculus and Physics that students might not find as compelling. But there’s no way that EVERY student will find EVERY subject more enjoyable than playing video games or whatnot. The most we can hope for is self-disciplined students who learn some things because they want to, and others because they have to. And the only way this can occur is if parents instill discipline until their children become SELF-disciplined. My parents made it very clear that not doing well in school wasn’t an option, and they continued until I was old enough to understand they were right. At that point (around sophomore year in high school), I didn’t need to be told to study anymore.</p>

75

<p>Lots of great points made here. </p>

<p>Now, how do we fix the situation? Can we?</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p>There’s not a one size fits all strategy that one could implement. I strongly disagree with the libertarian mentality that private is infinitely better:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>FWIW, I had an excellent teacher that motivated me at my public school, and several others that could be called nothing short of outstanding. My professors at (a private) university paled in comparison. The problem is the stigma attached to teaching that prevents too many people who could make an impact from even considering teaching to begin with. I know that’s not a panacea, but before tearing the system apart completely, there should be a good and critical look at internal problems first.</p>

77

<p>SLACFac, maybe your high school education was a lot better than mine. My history class did not teach me anything pertinent to the questions, “How should I invest my money?” or “What do modern religions draw from classical Greek mythology?” (I am aware of some parallels or intentional contrasts between religions but none of them between a modern religion and classical Greek mythology.) </p>

<p>

Can you elaborate? How does knowing Shakespeare or Greek mythology make you a better global traveler? Do you discover influences of Greek mythology in Japan? Make small talk about Shakespeare with Kenyan villagers? (I’ve lived on 3 continents speaking 5 different languages. Not once did I wish that I knew my Greek mythology or Shakespeare better.)</p>

78

<p>@b@r!um: You do have a point. I also don’t see how mythology or Shakespeare can make you a better traveler… That’s for the foreign languages class.</p>

<p>The only place I see Myth (not just Greek but Roman, Nordic, Indian) is in video games and books.
Shakespeare only applies in readings. </p>

<p>How do we fix the solution?
Well we tried numerous time.
I don’t think a national or even statewide laws would work.
But I think cities are part of the problem:
Take my school and there are 4 other school only city apart. My school is very successful with student. The school down south is a good alternative to my school. The school up north is failing: if non-smarter people from my school goes north then they’ll feel smarter because my school had more resources and MONEY. The city north is falling apart or struggling to repair itself. the other 2 school are in danger of failing. It the city up north gain more money then they would increase their success. </p>

<p>But it won’t work fully.
Then you have the students. The students up North come from poor background and upcomings. My area is mixed but it a bustling town. Riots break out in the north, This place barely see any fights (it only a few miles like within 10-15 miles apart).</p>

79

<p>I didn’t learn these things in high school–but I did learn them in the types of college classes that some have criticized in this thread. Again, I have no idea how to approach the problem of creating the appropriate context, etc. at the high school level–the blunt side of me wants to say that actually respecting the teaching profession and providing incentives that would make people with the educational background to contextualize this stuff think that HS teaching was a good option would be a start. </p>

<p><a href=“I%20am%20aware%20of%20some%20parallels%20or%20intentional%20contrasts%20between%20religions%20but%20none%20of%20them%20between%20a%20modern%20religion%20and%20classical%20Greek%20mythology.”>quote=b@r!um</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please note that what I’m about to say IS a simplification, but this reply is going to be long enough already. It’s not quite so direct–to take this specific example: the symbolic vocabulary of, say, Greek mythology and Greco-Roman astrology is very similar. Obviously the planets are termed for Greek deities and the planet Venus in astrology symbolizes things like love, the feminine, etc. Now, obviously astrology was not a practice that was officially OK with the Church, but most educated people of the medieval and Renaissance had some familiarity with it, as well as with the mixed symbolic vocabulary of planetary meanings and connections to deities (there would have been a mingling of the Roman gods–which, in many cases were appropriated Greek gods–and local deities) that predated Christianity. Oftentimes these pre-Christian symbols or allusions would find ways into “official” church architecture (and in the unofficial writings of churchmen). I can think of windows in many churches in Europe as well as statues at the museum at Cluny and various church museums in Italy that contain astrological/numerological motifs that, while not directly an expression of Greek mythology, are easier to understand fully if you know the overlapping symbolic vocabulary of Greek mythology and astrology. </p>

<p>Furthermore, to move away specifically from the connection between Greek mythology and religion, there is a lot of evidence that a number of important Marian sites (including some sites that are still major pilgrimage sites) were previously dedicated to various feminine deities and that those deities were ‘merged,’ after a fashion, with the Virgin Mary in order to win believers to the faith. Indeed, we know that the role of the Virgin and the feminine in both older and contemporary Catholicism is a matter of much debate (see the recent debate over the role of nuns), and thinking about how the Virgin as symbol compares with other feminine deities as symbols (like Venus or Inanna or what have you) can actually shed light on this contemporary debate. Furthermore, I just think it’s important for (in this case) Christians to understand that there was not necessarily a clean break between Christianity and its predecessors, and that some very beloved festivals, symbols, etc. of their faith have pre-Christian roots. That in and of itself is not necessarily an earth-shattering idea, but a person who understands the pre-Christian symbolic vocabularies (like that of Greek/Roman myth) can understand WHY certain pre-Christian things appear in Christian religion and can increase his/her understanding and appreciation of his/her contemporary religious practice.</p>

<p>This speaks to the reason that I like to have a ready catalog of cultural allusions that I can think about–it’s not that I think I should be able to go anywhere in the world and talk about Hamlet with people (not everyone will even appreciate it in the same way…I’ve read my Bohannon), but having that catalog of allusions at hand will allow me to begin a comparison of cultures and to ask questions–why isn’t X archetype that is so common in the cultural catalog that I’m familiar with not present here? What does that say about different sets of values? How do I need to adjust myself to respect those values? Etc…</p>

<p>I just see great value in building up awareness of lots of symbolic/mythological/religious/etc. vocabularies: you see the world in finer detail, ask better questions, think more about certain connections–stuff like that.</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>Don’t really know what this post had to do with the thread, but…
People say that others who don’t think people should major in things like AH don’t respect a love of learning, because those people probably believe that college is mainly a place to learn, not get a degree. If you’re aiming to build your (economic) life on that degree, than you’re right, a single AH major isn’t a smart idea. But some (albeit probably few) people do go to college just to learn.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We get teachers and the administration to put more responsibility on students for bad grades (and behavior too really) and stop them from underestimating students and believing that students don’t do well due to “innate talent.” Too many teachers sympathize with poor students, and don’t recognize that it’s due to effort, not natural ability.</p>