Its about time I got serious about...

College Confidential Community
21

<p>"Actually though, as long as you take a decent number of APs and have other activities on top of that, Harvard would take students with fewer APs over those with more"</p>

<p>No, no, I know that...actually I don't care about tests like this nearly as much as the other people on CC., but what I was saying was that people are like machines, just working their butts off rather mechanically to do the maximum amount of this or that even though they extremely hate doing it. This is sad because education really should be more about having fun and satisfying the hunger in your mind. Unfortunately, under the present circumstances, students don't even have the ability to develop that hunger.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
This is sad because education really should be more about having fun and satisfying the hunger in your mind. Unfortunately, under the present circumstances, students don't even have the ability to develop that hunger.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, that's so true. Especially with the Internet - the best place to satisfy one's hunger. I wouldn't necessarily express the purpose of education as "about having fun" though - that could lead to misconceptions. There are two levels of education - one is in helping the student to realize his strengths/weaknesses (and to help the student develop skills that would help him in real life), and the other is in helping the student land a trade (by teaching specialized skills). As we know, school doesn't do a good job of either of them.</p>

23

<p>I agree w/ the idea that standardized tests don't encourage original thought but (even though this is only sometimes relevant) some schools actually do need them as an indicator of how their students are doing (e.g. the schools that are being shut down b/c the kids can't even almost pass the tests). </p>

<p>And also the laissez-faire type of school wouldn't encourage students to try new things. I know I wouldn't have figured out how much I like history this year if I wasn't forced to take it. Sometimes schools are actually justified in enforcing certain classes and it would be hard to sift it all through. </p>

<p>Plus I'm just a sucker for order and it would be hard for me to step that much outside of the lines. That's why I think that high school should have more of a rigid structure because it might teach you what exactly you want in a college.</p>

24

<p>@InquilineKea: I see what you're saying, but the best of the best who really love what they do had fun during the learning process, that is why they were able to achieve so much...I mean just look at Richard Feynman. Do you know Feynman was highly praised by Bohr for the simple reason that whenever Bohr talked to other scientists, they would get intimidated and be too nervous to argue against Bohr? But when it was Feynman, Feynman completely forgot who he was talking to and just went all out, bashing anything he found wrong in Bohr's theories openly and enthusiastically--like a teenage boy talking about someone else's momma (lol.) That's why Bohr loved him, but my point is that Feynman--a man who had an IQ lower than mine--would never have been as successful as he was if he didn't actually have fun learning when younger...this is why he always recollects of how his father made physics and math so much fun for him by telling him stories and such when younger.</p>

<p>And it's true that we should do better with the internet, but you also have to understand that the internet is also a huge distraction that often corrupts minds. For instance, more high school students have probably been on time-wasting websites about stupid things like celebs, hollywood, fads, sex, etc, than on educational websites that may help in developing a thirst for more knowledge in a particular subject.</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
@InquilineKea: I see what you're saying, but the best of the best who really love what they do had fun during the learning process, that is why they were able to achieve so much...I mean just look at Richard Feynman. Do you know Feynman was highly praised by Bohr for the simple reason that whenever Bohr talked to other scientists, they would get intimidated and be too nervous to argue against Bohr? But when it was Feynman, Feynman completely forgot who he was talking to and just went all out, bashing anything he found wrong in Bohr's theories openly and enthusiastically--like a teenage boy talking about someone else's momma (lol.) That's why Bohr loved him, but my point is that Feynman--a man who had an IQ lower than mine--would never have been as successful as he was if he didn't actually have fun learning when younger...this is why he always recollects of how his father made physics and math so much fun for him by telling him stories and such when younger.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem is - if the expressed purpose of education was to "let students have fun", then it would give a false implication that the students should pursue whatever they find to be fun - this could involve computer games.</p>

<p>Haha, I love your anecdote. People are undeniably most efficient when they have fun in their learning process. This needs to be appreciated among educators more - but the fact is - life isn't always fun or easy (even if the brains of individual students are generally reliable in detecting whether a learning heuristic fits the student or not).</p>

<p>
[quote]
And it's true that we should do better with the internet, but you also have to understand that the internet is also a huge distraction that often corrupts minds. For instance, more high school students have probably been on time-wasting websites about stupid things like celebs, hollywood, fads, sex, etc, than on educational websites that may help in developing a thirst for more knowledge in a particular subject.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On the other hand though - students still have hours of time to waste on the Internet every day in their spare time. That they don't waste all of their hours on the Internet - it shows that the students probably aren't going to lose all of their spare time on the Internet. Anyways, if a student really has issues with Internet surfing, well, there could be website blocking (although this goes against the idea of laissez-faire education)</p>

<p>
[quote]

And also the laissez-faire type of school wouldn't encourage students to try new things

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd say that school doesn't encourage students to try out new things - it takes up so much time that students can devote to other activities independently of their schoolwork. Also, there are other ways to encourage them to try out new things. One option it to allow them several options to pursue their item of interest. Offer a system of video lectures online for each student. Provide a list of online resources to learn the material from.</p>

<p>
[quote]

And also the laissez-faire type of school wouldn't encourage students to try new things. I know I wouldn't have figured out how much I like history this year if I wasn't forced to take it. Sometimes schools are actually justified in enforcing certain classes and it would be hard to sift it all through.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You don't need to enforce classes in order to stimulate a student's interest in the course material. There are other ways to do it (by encouraging self-study or a project in the field). Granted, some students may only discover that they have a "potential interest" in the material after being forced to take it - but does this justify forcing a lot of unenthusiastic students to take the course - and slow the motivated learner down?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Plus I'm just a sucker for order and it would be hard for me to step that much outside of the lines

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haha, but you're used to it. If you grew up with an unstructured environment, maybe you'd like it differently.</p>

26

<p>@sunshineyday: A laissez-faire type of school is key for people to try new things, 'cause then they don't have to be stuck doing the same **** with the rest of the crowd, taking AP this and AP that, studying too much for this and that even though you don't like that subject at all. As I said, in my ideal school people would still have to earn a certain amount of creds to graduate, so motivation shouldn't be of too much concern. But with the pressures of trying to do well in all subjects just to have a high GPA and class ranking, people cannot try new things. Therefore, a much more "loose" structure is required. Because people are afraid to do what Einstein did, fail all throughout high school just because his school had a rigid grading system and he was interested in other, more advanced things that he could only get so much credit for in his rigid school.</p>

27

<p>^^ True, school restricts students by not offering certain things and there are a lot of different ways to pursue education. But subject-wise I think it's important for students to try a lot of different things even if they believe themselves to be on a certain path. If they don't like the subject, it's not slowing them down, it just rules another thing out for the future. </p>

<p>And I do agree w/ you that I might think differently had I not been in this environment for most of my life. But I have been homeschooled as well (in elementary school so maybe it doesn't count as much) but I think the competition at school motivates me a lot more and prepares me more for the real world than any self-motivation would have done.</p>

<p>Edit: nyjunior: I agree with what you are saying. Competition for competition's sake doesn't do anything and a laissez-faire school would have less of that. But I still think that a lot of people would be less likely to try new things in that environment.</p>

28

<p>I'm taking classes through EPGY and the local community college this semester instead of regular high school. I have found that being in a competitive atmosphere does help push yourself to master the subjet. It feels somewhat lonely when I get a good score on something hard and don't get the normal recognition from peers that I may have normally recieved had I been in a public school environment.</p>

<p>I do prefer the faster pace that I'm able to learn at though with this alternative to public schooling.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
^^ True, school restricts students by not offering certain things and there are a lot of different ways to pursue education. But subject-wise I think it's important for students to try a lot of different things even if they believe themselves to be on a certain path. If they don't like the subject, it's not slowing them down, it just rules another thing out for the future.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There could be a way of allowing the student multiple options to pursue the same material (that accommodates students with different learning styles).</p>

<h1>On a side note, perhaps an excellent idea (for the students who really want to learn in groups) is to set up a system of non-graded seminars in the region for students from throughout the region to attend.</h1>

<p>Of course though, indicators of performance are necessary. I went to a summer math camp and was somewhat frustrated that people were more fixated on playing games and having fun than on actually working on the problem sets. Also, measuring performance by an external exam at the year's end encourages procrastination. It's interesting to note that most homeschoolers don't seem to have major problems with procrastination. There could be systems where each student is evaluated on a weekly basis.</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm taking classes through EPGY and the local community college this semester instead of regular high school. I have found that being in a competitive atmosphere does help push yourself to master the subjet. It feels somewhat lonely when I get a good score on something hard and don't get the normal recognition from peers that I may have normally recieved had I been in a public school environment.</p>

<p>I do prefer the faster pace that I'm able to learn at though with this alternative to public schooling.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But it doesn't encourage you from actually pursuing the subject in depth - or from pursuing the subject rigorously.</p>

<p>Peer recognition, heh heh heh. Peers can still recognize each other on means other than grades - I mean, most people in life do have friends who recognize what they do.</p>

30

<p>But doesn't the weekly evaluation miss the point of the free-style school? I think that with any school, students are likely to form some sort of scale based on relativity of talent or supposed intelligence. Maybe not grades or test scores or number of APs but there will always be some other quality that varies in degrees within the group that will be tagged and used. Which is not necessarily bad in itself. But it would just end up forming another hierarchy in which the point would be to get to the top.</p>

<p>What would be your ideal system for the high school/college transition, i.e. preparing for college, getting into college, college admissions, etc...?</p>

31

<p>@InquilineKea:That's one of the things I loved about Feynman. He stated in his biography as well as in his documentary that he hated honors, he hated recognition. He hated it because he felt all that mumbo jumbo diluted the brain, diluted the pureness of thought, the pureness of love, the pureness of curiosity. 'Cause then people would just do things for the sake of competition, for the sake of being recognized, and though they would think they are being encouraged to do better than they otherwise would perform, they have no idea how it feels to do things, to work hard at things for the reason of just doing what you did, for the pure reason of developing curiousity, and just finding things out, whether it is a solution to a possible threat a plaintiff may use in a court case as a lawyer, or whether it is a solution to the incompatibility of quatum mechanics with relativity as a physicist.</p>

32

<p>^^ That's pretty amazing/rare.
Capitalism has a lot to do w/ why competition is considered so important. Actually it is basically the main reason. High school is the birth of future capitalists.</p>

33

<p>If you are a true capitalist, then you would like a laissez-faire type of education system.</p>

34

<p>Touche. (i.e. oh so true)</p>

<p>P.S. Are you calling me a communist? :D</p>

<p>I really hate it when teachers say communism like it's some sort of disease. True, the communist leaders have killed and subjected large amounts of their own people but the communist idea itself resulted from positive thought. When teachers say "communism" expecting everyone to just realize it as a bad thing, it reminds me of the Red Scare, which really scares me. Also a lot of people I know hate communism but they don't even know what it is at all. I'm not communist--I just hate irrational thought.</p>

35

<p>You're lecturing me as if I said "I hate all friggin communists!" I didn't even mention the word "communist."</p>

36

<p>hola! i am amu.. and u dont know me</p>

<p>psst i am indian too!</p>

37

<p>No! No!
That's not what I meant to do! I even added a smiley after the P.S. in my edit. I just was continuing the thread and expanding the argument, I swear!
That was just what it all made me think of, that was all. I wanted your opinion/feedback on it.
Don't be mad...</p>

<p>EDIT: Hi Juniorita, what's up? Btw, who are you talking to?</p>

38

<p>I have no clue.. i guess in a general term? lol srry for messing up your conversation. Have fun conversing =]</p>

39

<p>I'm not mad, it's just that you went on a tangent. I was kind of thrown off guard. And you appear to do that a lot too, which is fine, I'm not mad at all.</p>

<p>And hi juniorita, you were talking to me before, right?</p>

40

<p>^^ OK, good.
Did I miss something? Are you Indian, nyjunior?</p>

<p>P.S. Notice my new location. The other one was just getting old. Even though it did spark a mini-convo w/ Taggart.</p>