<p>No, merely that changing it in some (most) ways would give it a push for the worse. Like I stated before, if the “brilliant” people want to be challenged to the point where homework is a necessity, they should apply and be accepted to a higher school.</p>
<p>so you’re saying that while our general education system is not sufficient, changing it would make it worse? </p>
<p>lolwut.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. That’s what <strong><em>highly motivated</em></strong> gifted students do. The majority of them go play CoD or waste their time on an internet forum. Besides, had I applied to these schools, I probably wouldn’t have gotten in because my teachers keep describing me as “lazy” and I never turn in my homework.</p>
<p>If you could conjure up a method in which the educational system would be noticeably superior than it is now without creating any political/debt/etc issues, I’d like to hear it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dunno how your area does it, but we all just sat down and took a standardized test; people who succeeded on the test were in, lazy or no.</p>
<p>why? </p>
<p>i don’t have to come up with something better to critique your baseless proposal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so i heard you lack the ability refute what you consider bad arguments. gg bro</p>
<p>^^^ Oh srsly? I never actually applied lol. TOO BUSY GETTING THAT 10TH PRESTIGE COD 4. 8th grade was the ****ttt.</p>
<p>i don’t think you know what refute means.</p>
<p>re·fute
[ri-fyoot]
–verb (used with object),-fut·ed, -fut·ing.
- to fute for a second time</p>
<p>re·fute (r-fyt)
- To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
- To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.</p>
<p>i was using the second definition, although the first could be considered as well</p>
<p>I hate this because if I tried i could have a 4.0. </p>
<p>Case study, i had a 3.14 going into this year. Tried somewhat. I had a 3.71 first marking period. 3.86 second marking period. going for that full year 4.0</p>
<p>I don’t see why we are so worried about people with average intelligence. Why would we care about making school easy enough for even borderline dumb people? We should focus on giving more opportunity for the high performers of society to achieve more, since they are the ones who will invent and whatnot. </p>
<p>Because, let’s face it, the average human is completely irrelevant. If we need to ump the intensity of classes to challenge the smartest people, then do it. Who cares if the unintelligent people fall behind? Let them go to vocational school. We, society as a whole, don’t need them. They will live, reproduce, and die with no significant impact on the world. Therefore, it is just bad value analysis to hold the intelligent people, who will impact the world, back just so the mediocre people can feel like they’re important.</p>
<p>Elitist? Yes. What everyone is really thinking? Yes.</p>
<p>The “I just don’t try” excuse is still ■■■■■■■■ tho.</p>
<p>No, it’s true, I am actually wrecking kids on Call of Duty, Gears of War, and Halo 3. That’s why I have like 10,000+ hours clocked in and why I watched over 35,000 youtube videos. I could do better if I wanted to though.</p>
<p>
No thanks, I advocate what the majority desires. We don’t need anymore segregation based on a bunch of arrogant little nerds.</p>
<p>I’m not really surprised to see that on here, especially considering the amount of people here who really believe that education is everything. Of course, it does mean something, but when it leads to self-proclaimed academics condemning others because of their limited abilities, the purpose of education almost becomes negligible.</p>
<p>haha yeah, let’s segregate based on intelligence. that makes sense. </p>
<p>what we should really do is make everyone run a mile. those who can’t do it in under 7 min should be forced to drop out of school and work at mcdonalds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, only few students would think as deeply as to consider the implications of their not trying hard, but the meaning is there nonetheless. The question ‘Why don’t you have a 4.0 GPA’ is not meant to be taken directly; rather, it branches into a series of interrelated questions, involving motivation, perseverence etc., therefore implying that a ‘smart but lazy’ student is not as smart as an average yet hardworking student, in that they do not understand the importance of dedication to whatever goal they may wish to reach.</p>
<p>Okay so let’s say a employer gives two people different projects, one smart/lazy other hardworking/average, it takes the lazy guy two days to do what it took the hardworking guy 2 weeks to do, see, it doesnt matter who is hardworking or not, its intelligence</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s amusing is that this suggestion is basically the same as:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Optional homework is actually not a bad idea if handled correctly. Case in point: one of my classes (a lecture class) this year only had one grade - the final. The homework sets and even the midterm were optional; the TA would look over them and give us feedback, but they weren’t graded or anything. And yet everyone in my class ended up doing the homework (or as much homework as possible), because not doing the homework or the midterm basically meant that you’d bomb the final.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. If only it were so easy. The problem that is present in the first place is replicated here. Why does that student who is intelligent enough to get good grades not study? Quite frankly, it is almost certainly because that student is lazy, and does not value any arduous task. Therefore, it is counterintuitive that any lazy, smart student would seek a challenge, as lazy people do not seek challenges.</p>