<p>b@r!um, I’m afraid that you keep on missing my general point–I’ve focused on specific examples (Greek mythology, 19th c. lit, whatever) because, at least as I’ve understood it, you and others have been arguing that these “older” fields do not help us with contemporary issues/are irrelevant/turn students off, when my only point in all of this is that I don’t think you can effectively or meaningfully study contemporary ________________ unless you are acquainted with what preceded it. That’s why I’ve spent time discussing the connections between Greek mythology or 19th c. lit and the understanding of contemporary religion or the individual’s aesthetic judgment–it’s not that I’m arguing to prioritize those specific bodies of knowledge, it’s just that I’m trying to show how we cannot fully understand some contemporary things unless we also understand these older things. </p>
<p>I would say that giving students information about contemporary literature, art, politics, music, etc. and leading them to think that they have truly mastered a subject area without providing them with some of the necessary historical background to understand how those things came about is very dangerous. I’m going to try to replicate a very funny outburst from one of my colleagues who teaches contemporary US politics, who said, “God save me from [alliterative curse word] freshmen who think they know something because they managed to get a 4 on the AP exam. They are impossible to teach because they think they know everything, but none of them know [curse word] about the actual foundations of anything and so all their answers are either wrong or as shallow as a puddle.” (The wording’s not exact, but the curses and the phrase “shallow as a puddle” definitely were there!)</p>
<p>As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t know how to fix this in K-12–I know that there is more material out there to be learned than can be possibly learned and I know that we do have to somehow prioritize. I know that we can’t just start teaching literature/history/art “from the beginning” because we’ll never get to “now,” and that’s not OK or rewarding for the students. I understand that we may need to use contemporary lenses to help students begin the process of learning about the history of literature/art/etc. and why it matters. I absolutely understand that the K-12 system is not effectively set up to teach this material in the most effective way, and I understand why so many students get so frustrated. I myself did not really being to appreciate the curricular foundation I"d been given in high school until I started talking college courses that allowed me to bring multiple disciplines together in a synthetic way. I simply don’t think that responding to the problem by privileging the contemporary without acknowledging its foundations is the answer because I think educating in that way creates a dangerous arrogance about knowledge.</p>
I am still not sure where you got that from. I very explicitly said that we should acknowledge old foundations where that makes sense, and Dad<em>of</em>3 seems to agree too. The problem is that the current curriculum only studies the past and never relates it to the present. </p>
<p>
But that’s EXACTLY what the current system is doing. I’ve had several history classes that started with the ancient Romans and Greeks, and none ever got beyond World War 1 because we ran out of time. History class was basically storytelling time about medieval kings. Conclusions I drew? History is irrelevant because the world back then looked nothing like the world right now.</p>
<p>I did not have a SINGLE class in high school that EVER acknowledged ANYTHING that happened in my own lifetime (not science, not politics, not literature or music or art or economics). Not even 09/11 got mentioned inside the classroom. The only ray of modern sunlight was lunch break: the computer system through which we could pre-order and pre-pay for lunch was new.</p>
<p>Acknowledging the present in any shape, way or form in the current high school curriculum would be a huge leap forward.</p>
<p>I personally think a lot of it comes down to interest in a certain subject matter as well. If a teacher or subject is boring to you it’s not going to attract you, plain and simple. There are too many threads on here about people being forced into Ivy Leagues/Fields of their parents’ choices and not their own. If you got students attention young (high school), and they we’re able to figure out what they truly enjoy than maybe a University vs. Community College would be more appealing as you know what you’d like to do with your life. There’s nothing better than doing something you enjoy and not everyone wants to become doctors and engineers.</p>
<p>There are many many kids who are totally bored in subject that they really love. Manyclasses are simply not challenging enough to make it interesting. Most 12 y o who truly love math and are above average are complaining about very boring classes. Material is not explained sufficiently and it is not at the level of 5th and 6th grade in other countries and the best kids are at risk of loosing interest in subject. This is true for most hard scinece classes. They simply cannot be taught properly for the lack of math background. The program that supposed to spark the interest, destroys it instead. Result - most, even the top caliber kids are not prepared for college in math ans sciences. Resources at colleges are devoted for remedial activities which increases the cost of higher education and many still would fall out of their original track in pre-med, engineering and other science oriented majors. Even something like Music theory might be too challenging at college because of lack of math background. Very very sad, especially after so much money is spent per each student in k - 12.</p>
<p>I have known this was a big issue since I was a small child… I am suprised it is news to some. There is nothing you can do to increase someone’s motivation much. I always had an interest in learning and in doing well in school because I wanted to get a good job that paid well and I liked getting good grades and being at the top of my class (not in English or writing classes , though!). I think it is just taboo to acknnowledge that in some areas, cultures, etc no one cares about school ( from parents to students), no one cares about doing well or getting ahead. It is not a priority in life, for different reasons, and will never be one.</p>
<p>I was born in Romania, currently going to attend Duke this fall.</p>
<p>In Europe we let “bad eggs” fail- disruptive people that have no desire to learn, no drive, no initiative, and cause an epidemic to spread that puts this mindset into other minds. You might not think much of my country, but we have a huge intellectual base and job turnout of skilled workers from our Universities because we simply stop trying to coddle individuals born to fail. In America, it is way different. A MN middle school was almost closed because two minority students (saying minority to specify brackets) thought they were too cool to take the national test MCA and the requirement for minorities was not met (there were literally 4 kids not white in the whole school so 50% was failing). As the story goes, these students eventually dropped out of high school because again, nothing could change them. Our system is just different I guess.</p>
<p>I love learning. If I could afford it I would probably stay in school for the rest of my life. What I don’t like that doesn’t keep me motivated, is when I have a professor who is unenthusiastic about what they’re teaching, or doesn’t teach it well enough where I understand it. I’m guessing this is a main thing with most students that aren’t doing very well or end up skipping classes.</p>
<p>Ridiculous. Now, if you want to talk about current events, you can do so with your friends and countless numbers of people over the internet. Whoop de doo. Could you imagine talking about current events with a bunch of other high schoolers? Now, that’s torture.</p>
<p>Also, did no one seem to have Government class? Really?</p>
<p>@LDdebate I’m Bulgarian and it at least used to be that way in Bulgaria when my parents were in school, and I’m aware of how smart you Romanians are! I’ve talked to a Romanian student and I heard from a friend at Princeton that they are basically academic monsters. </p>
<p>It should be the same way here. Part of the reason many don’t work hard is because they know that they’ll graduate from high school either way, so what’s the point. Those who really don’t want to do anything should fail out and the prospect of failing and being kicked out of school should motivate those who are on the fence, which I believe are the majority of underachievers. High schools should have policies similar to colleges when it comes to failure in which they kick out students with GPAs below 2.0 who don’t improve within a semester and send them to alternative schools. In my high school, you can graduate as long as you pass the state exams (which are easy, believe me) and you pass 4 years of English, 3 years of science (2 years of lab science I think), Geometry, Algebra I, and Algebra II. That’s it! Your overall GPA can be on the floor pretty much and you still can graduate even if you only pass a set of easy requirements that don’t necessarily prepare anyone for college.</p>
<p>There are many variables that can affect the reason why students are less motivated to learn. As we proceed to the future, students are relying on technology and new technique to learn. In psychology class, I learned how to improve the way I register new information. In addition, when I do a research paper, I don’t need obtain a book from the library. There are current database which colleges provide information for the student and makes researching much easier.
Just gives me a reason to challenge my professors intellect on new ideas that are presented in society. Just reassure that I’m not wasting my time studying something pointless. I don’t think it’s the problem with student’s learning. From my perspective I think students taking in current information are not skeptcal about what they have learned. I use the information I obtain just to make better decisions and figure better routes of succeeding.
I had a discussion with one my client. She had introduced this same topic about her son. I suggest that education should be a privilege not a requirement. Those who take learning serous should be reawarded and those who don’t, well it’s a shame. Remember we live a zero sum society. In one hand we have a winner and other we have a loser.</p>
<p>If embracing the idea that some people are “born to fail” is required to create a huge intellectual base and more skilled workers, then I’m glad this country is not like Romania. It never seems to occur to people from other countries that the US is infinitely more varied and complex than the (relatively) tiny societies they use as their baselines.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with looking to other countries who have students who score higher in certain academic areas and adapting techniques which may be helpful in American schools. However, when various posters proclaim, “well, this works in Finland (China, Romania, etc, blah, blah, blah) so obviously we should do it here”, I tend to dismiss their opinions as glib oversimplification. Our society and culture are far more complex than most of the places used in these comparisons and our values don’t generally support the wholesale discarding of large groups of young people if they aren’t stellar students by the age of 14. Personally, I’m pretty glad that’s the case and overall, wouldn’t trade places just to be able to move up in the international academic rankings.</p>
<p>So then tell me why we have one of the worst education systems in the world, same with China? Both our populations are huge, thats why we have good students, not because the system is well designed. It should embarrass Americans that a post Iron Curtain era nation like Romania, with limited resources and a fraction of the population can still churn out “high schools” of the same caliber. There is not anything “complex” about it. People are people, genetics is genetics. Certain people will NEVER achieve anything, regardless of what resources/love/etc you give them. Stop coddling failures.</p>
<p>Why should it embarrass Americans, such as myself, that a fledgling nation can produce the same quality of education that we are despite severe disadvantages? You say people are people, and genetics is genetics. This feels like a nature vs. nurture debate, but don’t they both play equal roles in the performance of an individual? You say certain people will never achieve anything, but what basis do you have for that claim? I agree with your last sentence, about not coddling failures. I feel like education should be treated as a privilege, not a right. People place value on things based on the effort spent in trying to obtain it. When education is force-fed to everyone regardless of willingness, the percentage of students rejecting it will increase. If it were treated as something valuable and exclusive, then more people will flock towards it. I think that’s why people like collecting rare things or being rich; they see it as an opportunity to get recognition from others due to its arbitrarily-placed value. So, if motivation is a major factor in getting kids to learn and use knowledge, then we have to make kids want to learn. How could we make them want to learn? Well, let’s look at what kids want to do right now. Games, social networks, forums, sports… I really wouldn’t know, since I’m probably not representative of today’s generation. If we could emulate that appeal in education, then we’d be getting somewhere. Making it exclusive seems to be shot down by Joblue, so we have to figure out an alternative option. Any suggestions, residents of CC?</p>
<p>Slacfac and barium, I have found you both very interesting! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is my one disagreement. A lot of ancient history is taught in elementary and middle school. When we get to high school we don’t need to do IT ALL over again! Time to hold students responsible for the things they learned before high school. There should be no need to start from the beginning and cram everything in. I found it boring every time we started over.</p>
Certain people simply desire not to educate themselves but to live their life, and there is nothing wrong with that, our system however forces everyone down the same path that education is necessary and if those students that don’t want to be there don’t perform, everyone suffers. Additionally, there are many people that simply are failures, thats how it is. You can’t argue this, you know they will never be able to do well in school (maybe in other areas) or they have a mindset that simply can not be changed. Why waste resources trying to prove me wrong in our schools in stead of just getting rid of the bottom end and saving those resources to improve the top end of things? Band programs, newspaper, literature, AP classes, etc are constantly cut in order to help those in need. Seriously, it is not that hard to pass high school. If you can’t, get out.</p>
<p>@ Lima
The US is a joke when it comes to high school education, ask anyone not in this country and you will see. Europe laughs at you because we have this idea that “everyone matters.” Standardization fails as a concept when people can’t get booted out for failing.</p>
<p>Lddebate–I don’t want to “ask anyone” in another country, I want real data! And I want data on the whole population, not just the top 10 %. Talk is cheap.</p>