What is wrong with High School

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>@MITChris
@PiperXP
@Molliebatmit
and others whom I might be missing.</p>

<p>I want to know what your opinions are on my idea about high school, and the admissions process, and if you believe these reforms are a good thing.</p>

<p>I believe that it isn't about the grades, the scores, what extracurriculars you do, but who you are and what your goals are. I often see in my Magnet School these kids who are just joining things just to look good. When I talk to them, they say things like, "Oh I love economics/politics/Literature but I am going to take AP Physics C, even though I hate the idea of set laws for everything, just because I believe that colleges will pick me because they think I am diverse", "Oh Mrs.<insert teachers="" name="" here=""> takes AP problems from the AP website, instead of studying, why don't we go and look at the answers to all the problems, so we can get a good grade.", "I want to go to a top college, because the college's name will get me a good job", "Oh I am going to take AP Psychology because its chill, and I will get a good grade, even though I really want to do physics instead." Now if all you want in life is a good job, stable income, good family, then that is absolutely fine, I respect your choices, they are no better nor no worse than anyone else's, but why go to a college like MIT. MIT I believe is looking for the kids who are going to change the world, re-write history, and do amazing things. You don't even need college to get a stable income, good family, etc, why pretend you are something you aren't and then be miserable for 4 years, and get a similar job? I believe that people should portray who they are. If they aren't passionate, then there shouldn't be pressure to make them passionate. I believe it is the way we are brought up which is the root cause. They make it seem that someone who is passionate is better than someone who isn't, when that isn't the case, they are just two different types of people. They also portray a top school as well above others, when it may not be for that person. Also there are passionate people whose goal is to just get into college. Then what? There are so many people who are just doing things, like playing a sport just to get noticed. That isn't being themselves, and that is just setting themselves up for misery. Then there are those amazing athletes, artists, and other people with non-academic talents forced into a job where they are sitting in front of a computer organizing numbers, just because someone told them that you should do that because everyone does it and you will probably get a job. I believe that colleges shouldn't be ranked at all, because that makes a university seem better for all when it is a good fit for only some. Colleges should not tell people what they are looking for either so that people can be completely honest about who they are to the universities. Also there should be much less merit in SAT scores. Honestly is having a 600-800 Math score required to become the next Einstein. Einstein was a failure in high school, what if high school was what was holding him back? What if the next Einstein is being held up, because he/she believes it is neccesary to master 7th grade math, writing, and reading? Also grades a grossly inflated, everyone is shooting for a 4.0. Why should that be the goal, why shouldn't grades be deflated so much that a 4.0 effort gives you a 3.0, and then you have to choose what you enjoy the most to get the best grade in, that will push kids to stop worrying about being perfect, and just do what they enjoy. Also tests should be all pop tests, so kids don't study all the material, and forget it right after the test. Also tests should be more than remembering the formulas, if you only know the formulas, you should get a B. You should be able to apply the formulas creatively for that A, hence showing deeper understanding. Which will in turn show that the an A requires deeper understanding, something a student can't do for all of his/her classes, and will have to choose which ever he/she likes the best. Also an AP in something you dislike shouldn't be valued as much as a regular class in something you do like. I see so many students playing the "whose got the bigger ****" with how many AP's they have taken. AP Psych isn't worth it if you are taking it over Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, if you want to become a Physicist. Also people are discouraged to study classes that aren't AP's, because they don't feel they will be rewarded. So classes like Thermodynamics, Quantum Physics, Optics, Sociology, and any other non AP classes are almost never self studied for because some students believe that the number of AP's they take define them, and not their understanding in what they enjoy. Also a PE class shouldn't be any less valuable than a science class. There shouldn't be any reason why science student is held to a higher standard than athletically gifted student, or vice versa. In conclusion, I believe the system forces people to fake who they are, and doesn't treat all talents equally.</insert></p>

2

<p>I totally agree with you on this. This culture with everyone caring about how many AP’s they have taken in my opinion is meaningless. People should be taking what they love and really care about instead of what looks good for college. I have been trying to convince a friend of mine who is taking 5 AP’s next year to put one or two off and take something else. My school’s AP course expects 2 hours of studying every night. That means he has to (or at least supposed to) study 10 hours every night for AP classes. What is he going to do when he gets out of high school? He has nothing to show for, no extracurricular, no outside activities, nothing. I am really afraid for him this winter when colleges send their admission decisions to him because other than his all A report card( he is valedictorian), he has nothing else to show for. No awards (other than departmental awards solely based on grades), no sports, no music, no nothing. I doubt he enjoyed high school. </p>

<p>But remember, this is a system that has been around for decades. And in a way, it is a plus for MIT and extremely selective schools. As a senior who is applying to colleges this fall, even I can tell who is taking classes just because they want to and who isn’t. I have seen too many examples where people with straight A’s, good extracurricular activities, service leadership, and excellent achievements get rejected from these highly selective schools like MIT. And these are people I see as taking AP’s just because it looks good for college. I have also seen people get into MIT/Ivy League/Caltech/Stanford/other highly selective schools doing what they love. They may not have the best grades, the best extracurriculars, the best achievements, olympiad medals, etc, but they concentrate on one or two things that they love the most, and they get into schools they want to go. That may be sports, music, robotics, etc. It shows on college applications. And even if they don’t get into their dream school, they still have that passion in them to do whatever they like to do. They will bring it to wherever they end up. It will be a college’s loss in rejecting them rather than the passionate one because he or she knows that there is really nothing stopping him or her to continue to do whatever he or she likes. </p>

<p>I guess people just need to recognize that just because you don’t end up in your dream school, its not the end of the world. What college you end up will impact your life a bit, but what impacts your life the most is what you do where ever you go. I think college counselors should open with that line every time they meet with a high school student.:)</p>

<p>Something that my physics teacher was talking about and maybe why people are so into going to college: every high school student is expected to go to college. However, for some people, going to college is not necessary, maybe due to financial or family matters. Why does someone one who probably is planning to become a farmer/plumber/any other job that doesn’t require a college degree need to spend thousands of dollars to go to college? It may not be as prevalent as it is in where I am (Georgia) than where you are, but people sometimes question the need to go to college. Some people just want to get a job when they get out college. Why force them to go to college? And also, most high schools put everyone through the college preparatory route. Vocational routes are very rare. In a sense, the school is forcing people to do what they don’t want to or can’t do. Schools paint the picture that going to Harvard/MIT/etc. will guarantee success. Everyone gets into the mad race of AP’s/IB’s, awards, competitions, etc.</p>

<p>The previous graduating class at my school was unlike this at all. This class for some reason was really laid back, and just did what they wanted to. One loved robotics. One loved biology, another loved philosophy and etc. One qualified for the World VEX competition. One was a Intel Semifinalist. They were really angular students( good with one particular thing, but not all), and no one really cared about the number of AP’s. The topic of grades never came up in their conversations when I was talking to them. All they talked about was their specific interests, and I could tell that they enjoyed high school. Colleges saw this (including MIT). The grade above me had in my opinion the most Ivy League/ MIT/ Stanford/ Little Ivy League acceptances in my entire school’s history. I knew that they were good, but I didn’t expect colleges to reward them so handsomely. It shows. I just wish I was in that class because my class is the total opposite. I try to avoid topics such as grades as much as possible( not because I don’t take AP’s(I do, all 5’s :)), but because I see no point in it) and try to steer it to other topics such as recent news or science, but there are more people steering it back to grades, college, etc. than there are people steering it away. Its a hard culture to change, but one with immense benefits if successful. I just wish I realized this trend and culture that I was being sucked into earlier and fought it off.</p>

3

<p>It is awesome to know that I am not alone!</p>

<p>What do you think about my other ideas :
All Classes respected treated equally.(PE = Physics)
Making it hard to get an A, so changing the goal from getting straight A’s to getting decent grades, and great grades in the classes you enjoy.
No college rankings.
College removing what they are looking for.
Pop Tests, and Tests on deep understanding, that you expect most kids to get about a C on, even in the best group of students.
Removing the SAT.</p>

<p>Also, I want to make this change happen. I am not just going to idly sit here and just talk about it, that won’t do anything. I have already implemented a plan for my high school. I am hoping to try to get a rallying cry, if you will, so that more people will use the same basic morals written about above(or a better set that everyone agrees on), go to their principles and such, and start changing their schools.</p>

4

<p>I’m not even sure where to start. I didn’t go to a high school where these kinds of issues were prevalent – only about 40% of my high school class went to college after graduation, and virtually no one went out of state. So I don’t have any personal sense of the scope of these problems.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, although I agree that not everyone should go to college, and not everyone is cut out for college, I disagree that going to college is useless, or that people are qualified for the same range of jobs with and without a college education. I also disagree that all college educations are created equal. </p>

<p>Speaking from the MIT side, I can tell you that vanishingly few of the people who apply to MIT “because it’s a top school” will end up being admitted, and even fewer will come. Top schools do a pretty good job selecting against those applicants.</p>

5

<p>-All Classes respected, treated equally:</p>

<p>I think that is more dependent on the college rather than the high school to determine that. There is a very different amount of effort required in AP Physics C than there is in PE.</p>

<p>-Making it hard to get an A, so changing the goal from getting straight A’s to getting decent grades and Great grades in the classes you enjoy.
-Pop tests, and Tests on deep understanding, that you expect most kids to get about a C on, even in the best group of students.</p>

<p>I wish every school had teachers that do this. However, in the declining budgets, keeping good teachers is very hard. In my city, we have had counties that have totally lost their accreditation, administrators changing standardized test answers, etc. I am very lucky that my parents could afford to send me to a private school, but even my private school has only a few teachers like this. In my opinion, this all comes down to whether the teacher loves to teach or not, and finding those good teachers is hard in some states. And with legislation that rewards funding for the highest test scores/grade, it is something that will be very hard to change.</p>

<p>-No college rankings
I think you should change that to no emphasis on college rankings. They should exist to help colleges improve. However, a student should not use that as a metric at all to decide where to go.</p>

<p>-Removing the SAT</p>

<p>For some colleges, the sole indicator that they use to determine admission is standardized testing. As wrong as that sounds, it has some merit to it. These colleges are suitable for people who want to go to college but don’t have good grades at all. Remember, not everyone is thinking of going to world-class universities. Community colleges see no need to do admission based on holistic review because they are community colleges. For example, Kennessaw State University will tell you whether you are will be excepted simply by seeing if your SAT score is within a certain range. </p>

<p>In general, I think your ideas are great, but I would recommend you think of it in the scope of the entire college/university/community college spectrum. The only thing in my opinion that the US education system has done right is have the variety of colleges. There is college for everyone, from small community colleges to world class universities. That is something I would not change at all. </p>

<p>I’m sorry that I am more interested in building and flying drones in my backyard than I am changing the education system. But if I were you, I would become an educator. Be a principle and make your school the best you can. </p>

<p>@mollie
Wow, huge difference from my school where 99.997% of graduating seniors go to college (and something that my school’s brochure emphasizes heavily on). MIT/top-notch schools have done a great job in picking students, and I hope you guys continue that.</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>This is a common misconception.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You might be able to succeed elsewhere without these skills, but you still need them at MIT and in order to succeed in most of the real world. If you do something awesome but can’t communicate what you did, what good are you?</p>

<p>You currently have a wall of text that appears to form some sort of treatise on education. I agree with some points, disagree with others. Do you have a specific question?</p>

7

<p>Alright I think I took to many steps back, before anyone was ready.</p>

<p>@molliebatmit
I don’t disagree that an education at MIT is greater than an education anywhere else in the world. I completely agree with that. On the contrary, you have a student who is forced to become passionate about something he/she really isn’t by his/her parents, the school, etc. When the is actually pretty passive about everything and just wants to get a cozy job, and a nice family, and just well pass in life. What good is MIT for that person. He/she will be surrounded by people who are a lot different than him/her for 4 years, and he/she will be forced to do things he/she doesn’t want to. Now MIT does a good job of weeding people out, but just having a goal that isn’t for you could lead to misery. Say they get rejected and go to a state college, then they will always believe MIT was better for them, when truly it wasn’t at all to begin with.</p>

<p>@PiperXP</p>

<p>I am not sure how valuable this source is but, [Einstein</a> - A Biography of Albert Einstein](<a href=“http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/Einstein.htm]Einstein”>Biography of Albert Einstein, Theoretical Physicist)
According to the source, he was bored of class. Rather then memorize facts, he pondered the bigger questions. Now I don’t know how valuable the source is again, but even if it is not true, I have seen people like that, and am like that myself.</p>

<p>All my teachers and even when I was talking to this girl for the first time and explaining some of my ideas for the government have all told me I explain things pretty clearly. (My English teacher absolutely loves my writing) Despite that, I got a 590 on the writing section. (The 2300 in my last post was a place holder, I felt that I did very well on the test, I guess I didn’t oh well) Also why do you need to be a good writer before college to begin with, or even know that much about your topic. You should be able to think outside the box and be creative because the formulas and such and writing ability specific to the field will come in college. Now its not bad to know it sooner and learn the SAT writing section inside out, but how does a good writing score trump a well written research paper. What if the student couldn’t write 2 pages in 25 minutes, or whatever it is, but could write a beautiful research paper. MIT and top colleges do a good job of being holistic, but a school like say Georgia Tech might now see that the student is a good writer.</p>

<p>Maybe saying the SAT is useless was too much of a reach, but the SAT shouldn’t be valued much. A student shouldn’t spend 2 hours a day on the SAT, which the MIT admissions blogs agree with me upon, but no one really believes it.</p>

<p>Also if I were to sum up my entire argument, I would say that society shouldn’t make the goal go to a great college, get a job. Instead, they should try to have people just be themselves.</p>

8

<p>He may have been bored of his classes. I was certainly bored in my high school classes. This is very different from failing. Here, have a read: [Einstein</a> Failed School › News in Science (ABC Science)](<a href=“http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/06/23/1115185.htm]Einstein”>Einstein Failed School › News in Science (ABC Science))</p>

<p>In almost any class, it’s the student’s choice whether or not to try to memorize the information or understand the information/dig deeper into more resources. Those students will have the drive to do this whether or not there’s a grading system.</p>

<p>Frankly, you seem to be making a lot of generalized statements without understanding how the world works, because you’re frustrated that it’s not working out for you. Sometimes it’s the system’s fault. Sometimes, it’s yours.</p>

9

<p>Oh no, for me the system is beautiful, I enjoy Math and Science, that’s what society believes that people should strive for. I am much more worried about those who don’t. They don’t feel like they can be successes because they might be failures in school. Also I read through article, Einstein aced his classes. I apologize for the misunderstanding there.</p>

<p>All I am looking for here is that every talent be respected at the same level, and that societies encourage people to be who they are.</p>

<p>The way things are are beneficial to me,so this isn’t about me.</p>

<p>I am trying to take a ton of steps back and look at the goal of the education system. I believe the goal is to get people who are enthusiastic by nature to find their passion and run with it, and those who aren’t to live the relaxed life and do the other work. </p>

<p>Now our system instead of allowing students to be themselves tries to force everyone to become passionate, hence trying to change who they are. The system rewards passion, the system should instead reward being yourself.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Is it? All I know about you is you got a 590 in writing.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not exactly. We want a functional society. We pay taxes to fund education because we want people to be equipped with the tools they need to keep society running. There are ways we can encourage people to go for what interests them, sure, but keep the overall context in mind. </p>

<p>I don’t believe in the gold stars “you’re awesome just for being yourself!” crap, frankly. I can be lazy, and I don’t think I deserve praise if “myself” means the lazy streak. When I am encouraged to push for more, and when the result is me accomplishing something great, then I think I am worthy of praise. </p>

<p>We can encourage passion along the way to doing something great, but praising someone for “being themselves” is far too vague to be a useful guide.</p>

11

<p>So, if there is someone who just wants a cozy life, is it right to push them to do something that they don’t want to? No of course not. Motivation works best when it comes from inside. I think you might be missing my point. Passion isn’t the opposite of lazy. They are two different spectrums. When I am talking about Passion, I am talking about trying to become something amazing. Now if you aren’t passionate that is fine. Then your goal is to get a cozy job, now you can’t be lazy there either. You should work towards getting your cozy job.</p>

<p>I don’t believe that laziness is apart of who you are.</p>

<p>So let us try to do this a little more analytically. There is the spectrum of passion. There is a 2-D plane of interests, where theta corresponds to an interest, and r is how far they pursue that interest. Then there is laziness. Now having high passion is like AP Physics C. On the 2-D plane you are more concentrated. (Since I believe that if you have passion for something anything is possible, and that Physics C) So extreme passion will approach a degenerate hyperbola. Let us model this by x^2 -y^2 = 0. Now what is in between the two lines(the section which contains the majority of the x - axis) is the reach of a passionate person as his/her passion approaches infinity. This is someone who wants to change the world in his/her field. Now Someone who is passionate about a subject but not necessarily a sub topic, will look more like r = 2cos(3theta). Where there is more interests but less depth. This kind of person is more interested in getting a cozy job then the first, but wants to do it in said field. Now there are people who just want a cozy job, and they are the least passionate about something. So they can be modeled by r=1. They don’t care in what field, they just want a cozy job, and a cozy life. Now 1/(how lazy you are) will determine how far you fill up your graph.</p>

<p>So I believe that people should be rewarded for being who they are, assuming lazy isn’t considered who you are.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>Often to have a cozy life, they have to do what they don’t want to do. That’s what most people’s jobs are in the real world.</p>

<p>And it would be better for people that don’t love academics to force themselves to acquire math, writing, and critical reading skills while in high school. High school is the time to try to be good at everything in school. College is the time to specialize in what you like and are good at.</p>

13

<p>@collegealum314</p>

<p>I agree with you on that, well I believe they should learn a much wider variety of things. Everything from sports to physics should be treated equally, in my mind.</p>

<p>That wasn’t what I meant though. Society pushes people to become passionate about something. Now they shouldn’t be forced to be passionate in general when they aren’t like that.</p>

<p>On a side note, if someone is passionate, they shouldn’t be forced/encouraged (how people take AP Lang/Lit when they are passionate about Math) to take classes which have no bearing on them.
Now to determine whether the person is passionate should be determined by the individual. If society and other sources don’t push for more passion, people will be honest, because they won’t believe that lying would be of any benefit to them, which is how it is.</p>

14

<p>Your idea of how the world should work sounds great and all, but in reality, it’s way too ideal. </p>

<p>First of all, some things you mention seem to contradict one another. You say that there should be pop quizzes/tests for grades to test the real knowledge of students. You also say that people should just doggedly pursue what they’re interested in. However, you forgot to consider the fact that when people go after what they love, they often have to sacrifice other things. A student who loves to practice the piano and has a competition coming up must prioritize and often not study each subject every day. Sometimes, that student needs a specific date/deadline to keep track of himself/herself. </p>

<p>You talk about “being yourself” as if it’s just so easy that you could slap a sticker onto your forehead that says, “Here! This is me! This is who I am!” Many people are still searching for themselves, and that’s why they continue to take classes in different areas rather than just focusing on one thing. In addition, everything you do- the parts that you don’t like, and the parts that you do- all make up you. Thus, just doing the one thing you’re good at and saying that it’s ok to ignore the rest does not make for a very balanced person. </p>

<p>You also talk about how all classes should weighted equally, how PE should be equal to AP Physics. How could that possibly be fair? Although some students DO take the hard AP courses to look good, they are putting in a lot more effort, preparing themselves better for college, and therefore deserve to go to a better school than someone who just takes a bunch of PE courses because s(he) likes physical exercise better. Don’t tell me that you think that someone with “stars in his/her eyes” passion for PE thinks that that’s all s(he) needs to go to a top school? Many Ivies have courses that are much too rigorous without adequate high school preparation. Most of those people would just flunk out (I’m not being harsh here; I’ve seen it happen. At my high school, 25% of each class eventually flunks out because they have not had enough prep for the intensity of college courses). </p>

<p>In life, we all have to take things that we don’t like. I know I have taken some courses because they were mandatory or recommended for the path I want to take in the future. Just because I don’t exactly love or have great passion for what I’m taking doesn’t mean I should not be going to a top school. We all have to get through the things that we don’t like to eventually pursue things that we do. </p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong; I agree that people should have passion in what they do to succeed. However, they also need a certain degree of ability/knowledge in other areas or the basics (thus, they need the 7th grade skills you speak of). </p>

<p>What is the point of having a society of just “passionate” people who don’t have the brains/skills to back up their fervency?</p>

15

<p>There are a few high schools with a million AP classes, and I agree that it may not make sense to take all of them at the expense of going into great depth into one of one’s interests. However, I don’t think any college cares whether you take a million AP’s anyway. Generally, they want you to take the most rigorous course offerings of core classes–that is, take AP Calculus, an AP science class junior and senior year, AP English, AP history, and honors classes before the AP sequence. I don’t think that’s a lot to ask. </p>

<p>The point is to work on the fundamental skills in each discipline. I think it’s arguable whether a physics major should really be self-studying thermo and quantum physics at the expense of getting A’s in English. Also, I disagree with the notion that strengthening ability in English class has “no bearing” on future performance in physics. And I don’t just mean communicating results, but thought processes. </p>

<p>I was one of those kids who did do plenty of reading on my own, and also did the sort of out-of-the-box thinking that you seem to have an affinity for (e.g., applying physics to situations like this). However, I felt strongly that I should discipline myself enough to at least get "A"s in every class, and that my extracurricular thinking wasn’t more important than showing up in class.</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, no, but if someone wants to participate in society, they have to contribute.</p>

<p>“Passion” is an overused buzzword at this point, and it’s not particularly sensible to consider passion part of “who you are” and laziness not to be. These are both traits of a human being – they’re different scales, but they still make up who you are. You can’t just say “be yourself” and arbitrarily rule traits out as “not you”.</p>

<p>Your mentality also seems to miss the point that passion can be - and often is - developed. Go read some biographies of people you consider passionate. You think Einstein started with passion in physics, you think Steve Jobs had what he wanted to do figured out all along? Further, do you think that physics was the only thing that Einstein could do, or Apple/Pixar the only thing that Steve Jobs could do? I don’t believe we’re born with an innate passion – we evolved without many of the subdisciplines today, so it doesn’t make sense that passion towards something specific would be innate. Humans are far more complicated and far more awesome than you’re giving them credit for.</p>

17

<p>Yes I do agree that you learn from things you don’t enjoy doing. When I said AP Lang/Lit I mean the AP classes. I myself have learned a lot from my English class this previous year(11th grade) but I didn’t take the AP version. I learned a lot more from taking the regular version. I am am so happy now that I had to take it. If I had taken the AP version, I would have been hopelessly lost.</p>

<p>Yes you need a basic knowledge of just about everything. I believe that the threshold for basic should be much lower. Do you really need US History, and NSL, when you could make it all one class, which doesn’t go into as much depth. So in general each topic should have one/two base courses. Where they explain the way someone in the course thinks, and teach basic things. Then from there if you don’t know which you like best, you pick the ones you enjoy the most, and do those. </p>

<p>Also when I said PE should be valued as much as Physics C, I didn’t mean that our current PE class be compared. I believe that PE should become much harder, and require physical ability for above a base class. Everyone who isn’t disabled has the potential to run a marathon, and to Squat 500lb(225lb for Women). So getting people to start in fitness and athletics would be the base course, and harder courses would be a football class or a weightlifting class. Where you really learn how to weight lift, or how to play football.</p>

<p>After the base courses, the classes should be very difficult. Now people do sacrifice already to do other things. But a 4.0 isn’t unattainable. We should make a 4.0 as valuable as 3.0. This will make it okay to make a mistake now and again if you are rounded person, and those who do amazing in a subject, it will show passion, because you shouldn’t be able to obtain an A without really enjoying something, so the grades will look like my 2-D plane.</p>

<p>This will also encourage students to be themselves, because to look good to colleges, you have to be yourself.</p>

<p>Also a top school isn’t for everyone. They aren’t really top schools either. They are the best at what society preaches as being the best. Which is being passionate.</p>

<p>@PiperXP</p>

<p>I think we are talking past each other. See that is EXACTLY what I am trying to say. You shouldn’t be penalized for not being passionate at a certain point in time. You shouldn’t feel lesser than someone because you aren’t passionate at the time. You shouldn’t believe that you are any less worth it than another because you aren’t passionate at the time.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>No, we’re not, and you’re not. For instance, this is in direct conflict with what I just said:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But if you think we’re saying the same thing, then I think you need to think this issue through more before you start thinking you know the fix for education.</p>

<p>I’ve been saying that the system should encourage passion and reward producing something of value for society. You still haven’t adequately defined “being yourself” for that to be useful in discussion.</p>

19

<p>It’s not clear to me how society “forces” anyone to become passionate. The existence of rewards (material and social) for people who are outstanding at certain things doesn’t imply that anyone is forced to attempt becoming outstanding at those things. </p>

<p>I’m with Piper – people may have many different talents, but not all of those talents are equally valuable to society.</p>

20

<p>@molliebatmit</p>

<p>If that is the case, and we determine how valuable a talent is on society, by its direct impact on society. Then politicians, scientists, performers(athletes, and actor/actress) are all about the same but society values Scientists much more than politicians, and surely more than performers.</p>

<p>Also, let’s try this, say we scrap our current system. Just completely throw it away. We have a ton of brilliant people on CC MIT, and just CC, let’s think of an ideal situation.</p>