<p>MiamiDAP–Where are you that kids don’t start learning physics, geometry, etc. until “later years”? It’s not called “physics class” but our kids started learning the principals of physics, geometry, algebra, etc. in kindergarten. They were age appropriate lessons, obviously but on of the school traditions in 2nd grade was to try to design something that would cradle an egg during a fall from the school roof. Many principals of physics were applied to come up with something but also explain why some things worked and some didn’t.</p>
<p>US K-12 education used to be much better a generation or two ago (or so I was told</p>
<p>I attended suburban schools in an excellent district through 60’s-70’s.
Algebra was first offered in 10th grade. Eurocentric foreign languages, few arts classes, rudimentary science classes, rare to read original sources in anything but literature.</p>
<p>Besides being introduced to algebra in grade school. D1 also took it in 8th grade. She was in the middle math track.She took two arts classes every term throughout high school & did genetic research with a UW prof in 10th grade.</p>
<p>My youngest did marine bio research in Hawaii in 8th grade, learned how to repair & refurbish computers in high school & installed them in a village hub ( a school- where she taught others how to use the computers & how to fix them), in a small African village in high school.</p>
<p>Remember the story of the blind men describing the elephant? The US is like that, comparing the experience of a farmer in Missouri to a dentist in Florida to a tech worker in Washington & you will get very different experiences.</p>
<p>I am completely confused about this whole thing. I have no experience college since I have not been there, but there are a few things I see, at least in my opinion, wrong about the article. </p>
<ol>
<li>It may seem a little ignorant, but does it really matter if students learn little in college? Isn’t college for the most part a way to get a better job or get into a graduate school? Why does it matter how much a person learned in college if they are still gaining employment and are benefiting from the process?</li>
<li>Why is it the college’s fault that there is a disconnect between enrollment levels and curricula v. American labor market? Why should the school be responsible for choosing a person’s major? Isn’t the student an adult able to make their own decision? Shouldn’t they be choosing whether to gain a degree in biological engineering or child and family studies?</li>
</ol>
<p>I really do not know on either of these points. Most of this is taken primarily from what I see wrong in my high school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In theory, someone with a bachelor’s degree is known to be more skilled than someone with a high school diploma, whether it is in actual specific knowledge, and/or in the ability to learn something new. (This does not mean that there are no persons with just a high school diploma that do not have useful specific knowledge and/or a good ability to learn, but that a bachelor’s degree is supposed to put a higher floor on that characteristic than a high school diploma does.)</p>
<p>Some claim that many students graduate with bachelor’s degrees having made little progress in either specific knowledge or the ability to learn something new. In some types of employment, the name of the school conferring the bachelor’s degree takes on importance, since the employer may believe that graduates from a “better” school are likely to be better as employees (although one can also argue that some of this effect is due to entrance screening by the school).</p>
<p>As usual, we are trying to make sense of a multi headed hydra. </p>
<p>As pointed out by others, the points are partially true. A few thoughts I had</p>
<p>1) Previously you had a smaller list of colleges and there was not too many cross applicants. You more or less knew your choices. Today colleges are in the marketing business, they are trying to sell dreams, trying to maximize revenue, develop image etc. In other words, do things that are not a part of the core educational mission. Large sports programs are good example, most of them are in the red but most colleges are not willing to shutter them as they have image benefits. </p>
<p>2) When ever you have government funds, there are the special interests who want their share of the pie. We talk about the obvious, the Pell grants going to for profit institutions that provide suspect education. Then their is government funded research and grants that often should be questioned. I do understand the need to cure cancer and defend ourselves against terrorists, but the elite colleges invest in getting these funds and they skew costs and priorities, with Professors recruited for reserach and not teaching etc. Yes Universities should do reserach, but an unfortunate consequence has been that it has been emphasis on reserach at all costs. Then we have politicians with their own agenda. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, as parents paying outrageous fees, we are stuck holding the bag.</p>
<p>I just read an interesting article that full time enrollments at PA. community colleges are now decreasing. Students can no longer afford to go to college full-time, even at community colleges, and now are reducing their classes to part-time so they can hold full-time jobs.</p>