<p>"Why do you like the idea of all high schools offering different levels of classes? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of equal opportunity?"</p>
<p>"A variety of course levels will still be offered."</p>
<p>Don't these two statements contradict each other?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Also, what of those students who are "outliers" ?
[/quote]
Parachial, home, private, charter, boarding schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And of the people that can't afford these schools?</p>
<p>How very European of you. Shipping all kids off to the exact same school with the exact same courses and the exact same ECs and the exact same tests.</p>
<p>This is what Austria did and their students, despite being in one of the richest countries in the EU, get a subpar education because; their teachers just don't care, they don't get as much funding, and they are unhappily schlepped through an industrial education factory.</p>
<p>I agree that efforts should be taken to IMPROVE schools. Things like more funding, better pay for teachers, more AP/IB classes offered, etc. But I do NOT agree that it should be standardized. </p>
<p>Who says every student will take advantage of it? Will a student from a poverty-line Brooklyn neighborhood be able to compete with upper-class students from California or Conneticut? No, and it's not the fault of the school.</p>
<p>Why shouldn't anyone have a perfect GPA if they're willing to work for it? Are you going to force a student into a lower class simpy because they have too many '9' and '10' classes?</p>
<p>Your argument is essentially a 'nationalization' of all high schools. Ewr.</p>
<p>sorry, that was kind of unclear.</p>
<p>in the first quote, i meant different leveled classes (specifically, less opportunities) overall within a school. I.e., one school might offer up to Pre-Cal while another might offer up to Cal II (under the current system)</p>
<p>in the second quote, i was referring to the proposed system, which will include all reasonable courses and satisfy 99.9% of student requirements. you can never please everyone.</p>
<p>"And of the people that can't afford these schools?"</p>
<p>You can't please everyone. But under the proposed system, more people would be satisfied than under the current system.</p>
<p>Realistically, it will never happen, but for the sake of an intellectual argument...</p>
<p>I do believe that the GPA should be the same out of a 4.0 scale. All that 6 pt scale, 5 pt scale, B at a 93, is making my head dizzy...</p>
<p>However, I believe that extracurriculars in schools cannot be limited. The purpose of school extracurriculars is to pursue what students want outside of their regular regimen and almost robotic life. Standardizing them throughout the nation defeats the purpose of extracurriculars. </p>
<p>Also, this method of standardization is NOT the best way for high school learning, but seems like an attempt to put equal footing for college admissions throughout the nation. Why else would anyone(especially CC'ers) want to standardize EC's except for college admissions? The truth is that many high schoolers do not want to attend college after graduation and would like some "individual personality" in a school. </p>
<p>Let's face the truth. Even with allegedly same classes, EC's and etc... There will be differences. A low income neighborhood and a high income neighborhood would obviously have a tremendous gap in funding differences and parent participation. There will also be a difference in the number of students in the higher courses. Calculus 2? I doubt anyone in my school is qualified to take that course. </p>
<p>There will be teacher differences, as better teachers are attracted to higher income districts and the poor are left with the rut. </p>
<p>We should also take into consideration the regional differences in learning and opportunities. An EC for California would not exactly be the same or applicable in Puerto Rico. </p>
<p>I believe that schools get their personality from all aspects of their campus and curriculum, especially through the academic experience and challenges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"And of the people that can't afford these schools?"</p>
<p>You can't please everyone. But under the proposed system, more people would be satisfied than under the current system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So screw the people who are poor? Isn't that exactly like the system we have now? </p>
<p>The high income people will be sent to the private schools and excell there while the poor people will go to public schools and then we're not really changing the system at all are we? The rich still have the best schools and the poor the worst.</p>
<p>Whether or not a completely standardized national education system would be good for the country's education as a whole (I think it would not), the idea is a logistical nightmare. As others have stated, such an overhaul would cost the earth, and legalizing marijuana and leaving Iraq (what do you think we've been trying to do?) aren't going to cut it. We're already billions in debt, far more than the level deemed acceptable by Hamilton.</p>
<p>Another consideration is that the costs of operating such a system would be even greater than the costs of establishing one. Running education on a national level would involve expanding the beaurocracy to an unprecedented level. The Constitution stipulates that education be left to the states for a reason, you know. That's why No Child Left Behind is doing more harm than good.</p>
<p>I object on other levels too, of course, namely that literary types like me would get the shaft as English and history would be deemed less "difficult" on the scale than math and science, but I don't feel it necessary to go down that road.</p>
<p>^ Exactly. In fact its making it worse. CC'ers tend to think too much that the entire nation has similar opportunities that they have. Many attend schools that offer a wealth of opportunities such as AP/IB classes. But the sad truth is that only 62 percent of high schools offer one or more AP class while the rest don't at all. Most schools do not offer the 20 something AP classes seen on CC and are lucky to offer a few in the core subjects. A standardized school does not offer the fluid system we need to address the problems in our education. Standardization will not change the system for the better but make it worse.</p>
<p>mj93-Feel free to mostly ignore my post, because for the most part everyone else has said exactly what I am thinking, just much more eloquently. I just meant it seems like high school is a time where you learn to take the opportunities given to you. If your school doesn't offer something, seek it out yourself in some form or another. I didn't mean just 'teach it to yourself' like I said, because frankly I had never heard of that before CC either and I know I would never be capable of doing it, because I just don't learn that way. And it seems like high school is a major part of your life where you are gaining valuable experiences with new responsibilities and choices. If everything were the same, there would be no diversity in our choices. I mean yes, people would choose different things, but only to an extent. </p>
<p>And trust me, my school is definitely not up to the academic standards many other high schools I know of are. It is very, very easy to do no work at my school and pass with flying colors. But I enjoy that. I enjoy pushing myself to seek the education I know I can find and achieve. I don't think that makes sense when I say it, but to me it does. </p>
<p>And just a side note about ECs. They couldn't really be all the same at all could they? Would a Vermont school not be allowed to have a ski team because Florida gets no snow? Or would California be deprived of an Ocean team because Nebraska is landlocked? That just doesn't seem fair. </p>
<p>But seriously, I pretty much think what most people have said who disagree with you, so feel free to ignore me. Interesting idea you have though, trust me. I just disagree.</p>
<p>I say yes to standardizing GPA and standardizing the curriculum a little bit. But one has to be careful in this situation to not make all students think like robots. That is precisely what would happen if everything were standardized.</p>
<p>I know for sure that this wouldn't be received well in rural areas. My high school can't even support a Calculus class, so it most certainly wouldn't be able to offer anything higher. It's also so strapped for money that many of the textbooks are approaching fifteen years of use, and there are still Windows 98 First Edition computers in operation in the library. I don't see how a standardized school would be possible without major consolidation.</p>
<p>And there's a problem with consolidation too. Who wants to drive 30 miles to get to school?</p>
<p>Yea and let's turn the youth into little robots that mimmic every thing they hear. Life isn't equal, we shouldn't teach that way.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, here's a tip what the world would look like if everything was standardized, watch the movie "Equilibrium"(2002) that stars Christian Bale. You might get an idea how dull everything may be.</p>
<p>^^ I've never seen it but I love Christian Bale. </p>
<p>Sorry just HAD to throw it in :].</p>
<p>Interesting idea, but a smaller high school isn't going to be able to offer as amny classes as a larger high school.</p>
<p>Standardized tests would become excessively prevelent and students would memorize, not learn; which is the true purpose of our education system, although already we are losing that. You would remove the creativity factor and life's lessons a variety of teachers offer</p>
<p>Wow, can we say "theoretical" lol.</p>
<p>Considering the fact that the national government messes everything else up, would it be wise to attach another function to it.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Legalizing marijuana, getting out of Iraq, and eradicating depression
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>And look what you just happened to mention first...</p>
<p><a href="Can%20you%20imagine%20how%20much%20money%20it'd%20take%20to%20offer%20Differential%20Equations%20everywhere,%20especially%20since%20maybe%20only%20two%20people%20at%20an%20average%20school%20would%20want%20to%20take%20it%20in%20any%20given%20period%20of%20ten%20years?">QUOTE</a>
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I don't think mj93 suggested we standardize course offerings.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I don't go to a "typical" high school and we have more course offerings than a few local colleges.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>In social studies and language arts, sure. But I hate our limited science offerings. Grr.</p>
<p>I don't think the OP means that we should standardize everything about high school. However, this plan basically shafts the poor, those who live in small towns, the really smart, and the mentally challenged. It seems to me that the preoccupation with the "average" - the "common man" - is not what our country needs now.</p>
<p>However, the responses to the OP have given me a new perspective on what postmodernism has done to Americans in the past generation or two.</p>