<p>^ I actually did my AP English 30+ page final paper on “Anthem”. </p>
<p>Not a huge fan of Ayn Rand.</p>
<p>@romanigypsyeyes: I am Chinese, was born in China, moved to New York when I was 7, and moved to California a coupe of years ago. I definitely understand the different cultures of this world, and I see that as a problem to progress, practicality, and even peace. Again, I am not saying cultures shouldn’t exist; I’m saying that cultures should not be emphasized more than global communication. progress, and practicality. Also, I strongly value reason and rationality over emotion. Your phrase “the spice of life” is meaningless to me because it’s a broad, subjective statement. I haven’t read those books, but I assume they’re very subjective and emotional with little rational content.</p>
<p>Actually, no. They just talk about a world without differing cultures. </p>
<p>You assume. That is part of your problem. You put everything under one label rather than exploring it. </p>
<p>I hope at some point in your life, you are able to travel to various cultures to understand WHY it is so important for the human race to keep its diversity. Sorry, I don’t want to live in a sterile world with very little diversity. It would be like taking a pill every day to get your required nutrients rather than eating. We humans need to eat for taste, too. Get it? Probably not.</p>
<p>^^^Let’s not start about a debate on Ayn Rand again! I was going to say romani, you must hate her. But I think Anthem is a less extreme book that can be enjoyed by many, including what its messages are.</p>
<p>Lol, you just Anthem was subjective and emotional @ryanxing. Learn about Rand first!</p>
<p>Romani, I’m in total agreement. That’s what makes travel so cool…I love being immersed in different cultures and learning it (not just touristy ways! though that isn’t inherently bad either!). But I don’t know, if people from all over the world had the same backgrounds, just not exciting.</p>
<p>And @ryanxing, I saw your post earlier, why would put STRICTER laws on drugs?</p>
<p>Another thing I would do: use socioeconomic AA for college.</p>
<p>Instead of racial AA? good idea.</p>
<p>I would raise taxes to revamp US education. My friend and proposed that college should not be over 10000 USD.</p>
<p>^Do you actually think it’s a good idea or are you being sarcastic? Yes, instead of racial AA, but it would sort of have a racial effect as well, due to minorities/SES status and all…(one study said the rate of minorities in top colleges would go from 12% to 9% but amount of lower-class would increase by like 30% or something…I can find exactly if wanted).</p>
<p>^YES! Oh, are you only talking about higher education? Or all? What exactly do you plan to do?</p>
<p>^ I was not being sarcastic, it’s a great idea.
I’m thinking about all education, because the system is broken in all levels.</p>
<p>I’d start low and go high.
Elementary schools need stronger skill building at the younger age. You develop your mind faster at a young age. Perhaps bilingual education comes into play.</p>
<p>Middle Schools need tougher curricula, with emphasis on either mathematics, sciences and things of the like, or the humanities, philosophy, psych. etc.</p>
<p>HS, this is college prep time. A challenging curriculum is required in HS, as I urge states to raise standards, and I repeal NCLB, and make a higher national standard.</p>
<p>No more easy tests anymore. We’re going for comprehension, not formulaic crap.</p>
<p>College would be accessible to everyone, however, it’s a more holistic scale than the broken one we have.</p>
<p>I am very interested in education.</p>
<p>Shouldn’t that read “AND the humanities.”</p>
<p>I agree with repealing NCLB. But what national standards? Also, I think HS should be for college and/or career readiness; not everyone needs to go to college.</p>
<p>Find if “no more easy tests,” what about the schools already failing them? OR that will fail? What will happen there?</p>
<p>^Is it really accessible though? Does everyone have the same chance? Does everyone deserve/need that chance?</p>
<p>I am not asking questions to annoy/disagree with you, just to generate discussion! :)</p>
<p>I said or the give the notion that there is a choice. </p>
<p>I was aiming towards those “standards” set forth in the NCLB, which really weren’t standards at all.</p>
<p>Schools already failing them have clearly not made an effort into teaching in a way that brings out the best of every student. For schools that fail, there should be one chance to meet that standard, if not, then faculty there is to be retrained.</p>
<p>I believe that college should be accessible, and under this education reform, there would be greater accessibility.</p>
<p>^Hmm. So with schools that failed, you would give them more funding (retraining) in an attempt to get better?</p>
<p>Yes, retraining in the form of funding.
We need to ensure quality teachers exist in all schools.
This would almost certainly at the first instance of tax raises spark opposition from conservatives haha.</p>
<p>^I think that ship has sailed anyways.</p>
<p>So how will we test your proposed national standards and what would those standards be? And will that perhaps cause one-fits-all education and thus unintentionally harm the progress of many students?</p>
<p>@romanigypsyeyes: I said that cultures should exist to an extent that they don’t interfere with globalization. Japan having restaurants with traditional settings and style does not such thing, so that is not within my argument. On the other hand, the religious and traditional cultural traits in Iran do significantly affect Iran’s involvement in the world. I speak mainly from a political and economic point of view; once again, inconsequential cultural practices are not within my argument, nor am I advocating for complete geographical homogeneity. What I am advocating against are cultural practices that interfere with globalization. I think I stated this enough times already. Mitigation, not obliteration.</p>
<p>Also, above posts remind me. If I were President, I would make Geometry and Algebra II mandatory in all public high schools and make a 4-year minimum requirement for math and sciences. The current education system has a bias towards the humanities, especially literature, which is not fair. =( I would also increase funds for colleges and high schools that have a strong math and science program.</p>
<p>^You can’t just get Iran to changes its culture…What would this “mitigation” do exactly?</p>
<p>And I asked earlier, why would you want stricter laws on drugs? And what would that entail?</p>
<p>Proposed national standards?</p>
<p>I. Abolishment of Standardized Testing Based only on factual knowledge
-No more teaching to the test</p>
<p>II. States issue tests that deal with skills needed to be learned for success in the 21st century.</p>
<p>III. National Benchmark on Literary skill and comprehension, and mathematical skill and comprehension.
- Deep Analysis of Literature will be required in schools.
- Precalculus and other Advanced Mathematics will be required, along with Lab Sciences.</p>
<p>Won’t II and III lead to the problems in I?</p>
<p>Also, do you really think all students should be required to go beyond Algebra II (if even that)? </p>
<p>So how would you find out that these national benchmarks are working? What would these state tests look like? How would you avoid the problems of NCLB?</p>
<p>The tests now are based on facts and rote memorization. Open response is a much better way. Where you’re required to fully understand and comprehend material rather than just know what to do with it.</p>
<p>An annual report would be collected, with each state sending the data, comparing them to the benchmarks set.</p>
<p>So all questions would be ALL open response? Subjective.</p>
<p>And how do you think this will improve schools exactly?</p>
<p>What would these benchmarks be? What would cause one school to meet them and another not to?</p>
<p>There would be a considerable amount of open response. Yes it would be part subjective, with some objective parts.</p>
<p>This will improve schools by not giving teachers and schools the chance to narrow their curriculum and teach only to a test. They are given a full spectrum to work with, allowing students to fully grasp the knowledge.</p>
<p>Benchmarks would be scoring benchmarks.</p>
<p>If I was scoring them</p>
<p>Benchmarks would exist at 80% Proficiency.</p>
<p>^It would be VERY hard for some schools to reach 80% proficiency due to some other entrenched problems, I would think.</p>
<p>So basically, by having open responses and less questions that can be “taught” you think this will allow teachers more freedom and thus institute more “real” learning in the classroom? Thus better preparing students better?</p>
<p>But what’s to say that people won’t teach to the open response? That it can’t be formulaic teaching? And if forced to meet standards, wouldn’t this occur?</p>