<p>Haha!</p>
<p>I almost did something like this, but in the end I gave a good speech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the subjects are not meaningless; they’re only meaningless in class. If you pursue outside research, the subjects, the “book knowledge”, turns into a reality. How is it not her fault for finding her own interests? A STANDARD education isnt supposed to help you make a foundation for inspiration; it’s only supposed to give you the basic info. IF you really want more out of it, you have to make it happen! It’s nobody’s fault except hers</p>
<p>And Aeroengineer, you’re right about your rebuttal, if you look at in context. I didn’t look at it in context. I was basing my inference on that sentence alone. So in those terms, the inference wasn’t that bad</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually the stuff you learn in school has very (i mean like 0.5%) little effect on job preparation. My dad, an engineer of over 35yrs of experience, has told me that the stuff he learned in high school/and even grad school (sometimes) is very useless; it’s different out in the real world.
He now runs his own company.</p>
<p>I find the speech to be very true. It explains why some of the smartest people we know have no common sense (a past thread).</p>
<p>^ No, I think you misunderstood. It explains that the people who have no common sense should not be labelled ‘smart’. According to her (a point on which I whole-heartedly agree), intelligence and education are more than being able to memorize notes and then word-vomit onto a piece of paper within the allotted time.</p>
<p>I remember a time when my exams actually required people to think a little. Those exams were worth doing. By my senior year, you had to think in order to not get a 100%.</p>
<p>I love this speech. She basically summarized how I feel about the American school system. Well done.</p>
<p>She (He?) got people talking…</p>
<p>I disagree with virtually all of this, except that the kids who graduate on top were the ones who learned to play/ were taught to play the system.</p>
<p>This is much too idealistic, she made it sound like the system completely suppressed any chance she had to pursue what she wanted, calling herself a ‘slave.’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess there is some truth in this. However, I believe it depends on the school. Some schools might offer programs or clubs where you can join, learn, or develop a passion for whatever. </p>
<p>When she claimed that she’s not the smartest in her class, but only the best “slave”… I thought… well no duh. Could she be suggesting that most people believe that valedictorians are the smartest people in the class? Could she also be suggesting that the current system only rewards people who are willing to conform by working hard and not the people who are just smart but don’t necessarily work hard in school? Again, no duh. Why should we reward people who aren’t willing to work hard? </p>
<p>Maybe I’m putting words in her mouth or taking too much out of it.</p>
<p>Or maybe she’s talking about people who are so busy pursuing their own true passions and who don’t want to go through the BS high school stuff. And then those people don’t get rewarded just because they don’t want to conform.</p>
<p>Her intent/message was disguised by a wall of drama and plethora of metaphors that were extra.</p>
<p>I think you all miss the point. She’s not saying that school gave her no opportunity for pursuing interests outside of school. Just that school in many ways <em>rewarded</em> her for focusing only on schoolwork and not branching out artistically, academically etc. </p>
<p>I disagree with her on one point actually. She says people who pursue independent academic interests don’t have the time to do all their schoolwork. I think that’s rarely the case. More often, I think it’s that when someone learns to love learning for its own sake, or finds something (painting, songwriting etc) that they really truly enjoy, they just lose interest in a system that rarely rewards creativity; they stop caring about a system that doesn’t stimulate them the way their independent pursuit does. As it turns out, the people that like learning the most slip down in class rank while those who have no independent academic or artistic interest and feel fully fulfilled by a single letter at the end of a 10-page paper they spent 4 hours BSing on a subject they care nothing about.</p>
<p>
Quixotic, I agree. I’m not claiming to have practical answers. Again, I choose idealism over corrupt realism. I’d rather strive for an impossible cause than settle for an ignoble one. </p>
<p>Vague- yes, I have to be. Because I think the best education would be fulfilling on an individual basis, not en masse as the system stands now. My inspiration is different from the next person’s, my curiosities and passions the same. What I do know is that seminar classes are better designed to impassion students than lecture types,and that classes like English and History are usually far less interesting and engaging than they ever should be.
But I don’t think asking for a more engaging curriculum is any more vague than asking for a “standard” one that we apparently have now.</p>
<p>
People who aren’t wiling to work hard for an education they find stifling, classes that don’t work to interest them, teachers that don’t care to engage them? People who aren’t willing to work for a letter grade that apparently quantifies an essay they put their heart into? </p>
<p>The question is why we reward people who <em>are</em> willing to work hard in such a situation.</p>
<p>SoulandRomance, yeah I see what you’re saying now. I did miss the point there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Still, I disagree with this. </p>
<p>It sounds like she wasn’t genuinely interested in those subjects anyway and she’s blaming the school for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you think you’re going to get to do what you want your whole life? I personally find it kind of selfish that you would expect school to cater to your interests like that.</p>
<p>Do you think classes should be designed in a way that’s meant to interest and wow you? Not everything is going to be interesting to one person. So if something’s just not interesting to you, you’re just not going to learn it?</p>
<p>Learning isn’t just… I have English one period, I love English, but I have Math next period. Oh, I hate math. </p>
<p>I find that most, or maybe just some of the subjects are interconnected, and it’s important to have a good base of knowledge. So how is English interconnected with math? Lol, you guys can call BS on this, but if you’re learning word roots, that could help you understand some math terms? :P</p>
<p>Plus, if you don’t like the school system, suck it up. Stop whining. If you’re not being tested on how much of the material you’ve learned, at least you’ll be developing study skills, a good attitude, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We don’t learn when we are fixed on passing a test or graduating first in class? That’s just ridiculous. Based on that, I’d have no knowledge of biology, english, math, or anything for the matter because I was “doing whatever it took to pass the test”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disagree. That’s only your goal if you make it your goal. I actually want to learn? Get as much as I can out of highschool?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Slave to what… learning and working hard? showing effort? being educated? I don’t see anything wrong. If I were valedictorian, in retrospect I would think that I was the one who probably knew the material the best, and worked hard, etc. Valedictorians aren’t slaves…</p>
<p>I mostly agree with the sentiment of this speech.</p>