Study:US is losing ground in education.

My point is weak, but have any of you wondered if it might be an "Eye of the Tiger" situation? Maybe students don't give a crap about their future because they've never had to spend a night in the cold or go without food for a long period of time. They have not been introduced to the consequences of lethargy.

A way to change this is to show them instructional videos covering the strong studying and working habits of the developing eastern nations, lecture sessions on the new global job market, and to top it off, a nice field trip through Bay City and Saginaw, Michigan to demonstrate just what will happen to this country and its people should we remain lazy in the classroom.

Hey, if you guys don't care about the (will be) skyrocketed suicide rates then go for it the East Asian way; the Japanese-Taiwanese way. Transform society in a way that passing schools, HARD schools, and spending extreme efforts in highly competitive situations is to satisfy societal pressure/demand just to have a chance to live on. Modernize the selective breeding and let the weak "die." Of course, it's very painful and I, as a student, would not like that. And no, this is not a joke.

But yeah, the Asians are smart myth probably have something to do with this. I'm Asian by blood, after all, and they say I'm smart, while I was just a mediocre kid (among the "best", though) back in the country of my birth. I expect that, now that I've breathed too much of American air, I'd stumble and fail in the pressure and the sheer academic demand that I would've faced in the society which I left.

However, from the perspective of a student from the Southwest of the United States (the area dubbed as "worst in the nation" academically), I'd say that the problem lies more in the organization (counselors [those whose role is to manage and counsel the students, and help deal with their issue], compare to teachers, are basically incompetent idiots. They are always "busy" and I couldn't see they really work for once) than the teachers. There is funding problem sometimes (lack of textbooks can and will hamper your learning capability, especially in a language class (i.e. French and Japanese) - personal experience) and I often got this "pointless" feel to homeworks. I am, arrogantly as it sounds, a better writer than many of my "classmates," and nowadays I tend to write sarcastically/satirically/politically "offensive" for a school standard when homework is something about writing in a generic topic [ex: topic is about heroism. Who's your hero? Well, my response is the (fake and pointless) analysis of how heroism is subjective and I don't believe in it, added with attacks on the percieved "heroes" of the epic tales]. Others, I presume, would simply abandon any attempt to do the work whatsoever. Motivation among the students, it seems, is extremely lacking. I am lucky that I have a clear sight of my "future" as a motivation, and, a mixed blessing as it is, has little daily distractions.

The problem with Taiwanese education it is rote learning test and answers.

Teach a kid A then B and you would expect in the west that they can synthesize C. No you have to rote teach the synthesis and the C. All this in rote learned column format. Everything from Chinese (where rote learning characters is practical) to Science (where rote learning makes you a parrot not a scientist).

The result is great linear workers but a destruction of innovators and those who think outside the box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The problem with Taiwanese education it is rote learning test and answers.

Teach a kid A then B and you would expect in the west that they can synthesize C. No you have to rote teach the synthesis and the C. All this in rote learned column format. Everything from Chinese (where rote learning characters is practical) to Science (where rote learning makes you a parrot not a scientist).

The result is great linear workers but a destruction of innovators and those who think outside the box.

---

That's exactly what "reformers" in my old country complained about, but though the problem was real (and creativity requires much more rebellious and determined a spirit in the "East" than the West to survive, at least in many countries), I never doubt the true motives of these so far unsuccessful "reformers." ~;)

A child will do far better getting some exercise and being made accountable for their school grades then either giving them all As or Hothouse environment where they just do test after test and then go to private schools to relearn the same tests.

I have to say the Taiwanese kids study long and hard yet do not learn as much per hour as the could do if they actually studied fundamentals rather then taking tests.

Taiwan 2 hour class:
5 minute roll call.
20 min Teach a concept, practice.
20 min Teach a concept, practice.
15 min test
10 min break while the teacher marks the test.
20 min Teach a concept, practice.
20 min Teach a concept, practice.
10 min record marks and homework for the kids.
After the two hours anyone who didn't get at least 80% have to repeat the test until they do.

Problem being is that is one of the after school classes that is more learning a concept then just rote learning test papers.

Most private schools were:
Repeat tests for two hours until they get 100%.

It is not learning a concept it is memorising a set of answers. A braindump, vapour certification, paper cert etc as it is termed in western education.

Quote:

---

Study:US is losing ground in education.

---

Meh whaddya gonna do ~:cool:

i find that both the most intelligent and unintelligent forum posters come from the US

probably because we are in the majority here, but i am reffering to both liberal and illiberal posters



eh, maybe not - i just came up with this idea right now and didnt really think about it too hard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Some of the smartest people I know, who have since gone on to have wonderful careers, did atrociously within our school system.

Nowadays especially, with the internet, those who truly want to learn will learn regardless of whether or not the schools are doing a good job. Those that don't want to learn will wind up going to a trade school, or something.

Honestly, this isn't as big a problem as people make it out to be.

---

If this is true, and I fear it may be, then why should I, and every other tax-payer, continue to fund government schools at ever increasing levels?

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zharakov

Hit you'r child, and they will do everything in there power to never be hit again. Don't abuse the child. But hit them.

---

I am learning more good parenting techniques on this board ...

Zharakov the reason in the West parents don't hit a child is that it is quite possible to end up in jail for doing so and losing your children to foster care.

GC, I won't consider the Internet a worthy source of knowledge. Is there lots out there? Sure. But I daresay there is far more crap.

Quote:

---

``The very best schools in the U.S. are extraordinary,'' McGaw said. ``But the big concern in the U.S. is the diversity of quality of institutions - and the fact that expectations haven't been set high enough.''

---

I am glad we all seem to agree that expectations are not high enough. Did I deserve some of the As I received? Nope! But I got them anyway, just because the teacher thought I tried harder than others. But where did this come from? Why is it that feelings are such a big part of America these days? Why can't children be told they're failing? Have psychologists really emasculated society enough to think that every single thing that happens to a person will scar them for life? I do not care about the feelings of 99.9% of the people I come in contact with. If I care about anything at all, I care about what they THINK.

Zharakov, no. Don't hit the idiots. Just don't coddle them anymore. If a child lacks the discipline, so be it. Stuff them in the courses they need to be productive, but don't waste time and money with children who refuse to learn. A teacher cannot make a child learn. And nor should the teacher. If a parent fails, well... that is unfortunate but that is a failure. If parents are too lazy, dumb, preoccupied to teach their children, so be it. The parent is a failure and the child will be too, unless the child has some spark of ambition. And I believe all children have that spark. For some, the spark is extinguished early on (like girls playing dumb to fit in), and that is tragic. But that is how schools work.

Azi

Quote:

---

You shouldn't. IMO, Public education should end about halfway through highschool. At that point, it should be easy to decide whether or not you want to go to college or not, and if you do want to go to college instead of, say, a tradeschool, they should evaluate on an individual basis (and the funding to allow enough teachers to do this is the only thing I would push for) whether someone is fitting for college. If not, there are always community colleges one can go to in order to make themselves better suited for college.

---

I dont know how it is where you live but here we have a thing called BOCES. Its for kids who would rather learn a trade than go to HS. Its a good reason why 90% of kids who graduate here go on to college and more than 90% graduate. In someplaces in the US the education is verygood.

I think one of the harder problems in education is judging how well students are doing. I can't speak for the US, but in the UK we have had something like 20+ years of continually improving pass rates and % getting top grades at GCSE (16 yr olds) and A level (18). There are two schools (sorry couldn't resist ~;) ) of thought on this, the exams are getting easier or the kids are doing better.

I am fairly firmly of the former opinion, I have done some teaching of 1st year chemistry university undergrads and there has clearly been a trend of students having less basic subject knowledge as well as an increased expectation that everything should be handed to them on a plate.

Personally I blame successive governments setting targets and publishing league tables that force schools to train people how to pass a test and not teach them the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

And a damn shame that is. Obviously it's wrong to break your kids nose, or punch him in the face, but a good smack on the ass with a belt will teach you not to steal from the cookie jar right-quick. :bow:

---

No it will teach them to steal it when you don't see it, and to put the blame on thier younger sister. ~;)

Just a small note, isn't all western nations loosing ground in education towards the developing countries ? And that due to support from the western nations themselves ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

If you compare US private schools to others around the world, I think you'll find there is some of the best education in the US. I got an excellent primary education in America through private schooling.

In general, public schools are full of teachers who don’t care and kids who care even less. (Of course there are exceptions, especially in rural areas.)

That’s ok though, because society needs a certain number of labor-type people who don’t have any aspirations other than getting married and having a nice little life.

If everyone had an excellent education, it would challenge capitalism, as there would be no labor class.

---

You're forgetting one essential point : talent. Sons of the rich are not always the most talented people, far from it. Selecting the new elite by breeding instead of talent is wasting a lot of talent in the process.

Quote:

---

The problem with that is that to reach some of the highest points of our educational system--i.e. Law School, Medical School, ect. you need more than what you can get from a simple trade school. And oftentimes one isn't ready to make that choice until well into Highschool.

Does your system account for that?
.

---

Well you can always go to community college if you change your mind.

My original statement was…
On a personal level I think most teachers live in a “school” bubble and are out of touch with the real world. The teachers in college were rather refreshing in comparison.
It is a page back, I repeat it only for others convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

You won't be surprised that I find this comment really irritating. The truth is that most teachers are in contact with students from a wide range of backgrounds, whose parents have a wide range of occupations and none. Teachers probably have a better idea of the range and variety of the "real world" than people who normally make this comment. This attitude is one of the reasons that respect for teachers is not as high as it could be. Remember, those children going in and out of school are part of this real world we are talking about. (Not having a go at you, Yesdachi. For all I know you could be a professor of sociology at Michigan state university and have a very thorough knowledge of the real world.)

---

Really irritating or not I still stick by it ~D , but let me tell you why :bow: .

13 years of school + 4-8 years of college = around 20+ years of being in school and then add another x amount of years actually teaching, in a school, heck, outside of summers most teachers really haven’t ever been outside the “school” environment, ever.

There were many teachers in my school that had been teaching for 15-25+ years many of them in the same classroom for most of that time. None of them ever worked in an office, factory, or anywhere else in the “real world”. They were almost all active in the school functions and political maneuvering within the school system but no “real world” experience.

I don’t care how many different kind of kids or their parents teachers interact with its not like being “out there”. As a senior, I asked my economics teacher, partly in fun but with some genuine curiosity, so what’s it really like “out there”? He responded, half jokingly, How should I know I’ve been “in here” for 20 years. :martass:

Needles to say the adjunct teachers and even some of the professors I had in college were considerably more insightful than most of my teachers in school.


Anyway…

As far as a standard teaching system goes I would never think to take away a teachers ability to interject their own creativity and inspiration into their class. The teacher’s personality is what can really make learning fun ~:cool: . But I think that a standard week-by-week syllabus of what needs to be learned and what texts were mandatory across the country would be really helpful. I could even see a future where 25% of a class was a video or something with the core facts of the lesson and the remaining 75% was left to the teacher to drive home the message of the lesson. I am just really in support of having all students of the same grade knowing the same basic things at around the same time. :scholar:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yawning Angel

I think one of the harder problems in education is judging how well students are doing. I can't speak for the US, but in the UK we have had something like 20+ years of continually improving pass rates and % getting top grades at GCSE (16 yr olds) and A level (18). There are two schools (sorry couldn't resist ~;) ) of thought on this, the exams are getting easier or the kids are doing better.

I am fairly firmly of the former opinion, I have done some teaching of 1st year chemistry university undergrads and there has clearly been a trend of students having less basic subject knowledge as well as an increased expectation that everything should be handed to them on a plate.

Personally I blame successive governments setting targets and publishing league tables that force schools to train people how to pass a test and not teach them the subject.

---

As a Chemist, how scientific are you being about this? Is it not true that applications to Chemsitry degree courses are declining? Has your college/university dropped the grades it requires for Chemistry courses? Might this not explain why your students have less basic subject knowledge? All levels of education have a certain contempt for the phase below them. The funny thing is that when I was an undergraduate over 20 years ago, I remember my tutor making the same complaint about a basic lack of knowlege shown by those starting the course in the year below me.

As for the "handed on a plate" bit, unfortunately this is true, and your diagnosis of the cause is correct. The damage is done at GCSE and you can't do much at A level to put it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Really irritating or not I still stick by it ~D , but let me tell you why :bow: .

---

Stick by it all you want, you are still wrong. You are following cliched idea held by people who
1. Extrapolate knowledge of teachers who school to a whole profession, in the process forgetting the good teachers they had and only remembering the one or two they didn't respect.
2. Believe that offices, factories etc. are more real than schools.
3. Think that teachers don't exist out of school. Of course they do. They have homes, friends, husbands, wives, children, all of whom are real and they face the same problems and joys as everyone else
4. Have the idea that being a teacher is similar to being a pupil, so teachers haven't ever left school.

None of the above bear close scrutiny. Now you could be saying that teachers do not have much insight into what it is like to be an accountant, baker, chemsit etc. All true, but then an accountant won't know what it is like to be a baker, so, following the same argument, accountants don't live in the real world either. No one does.

A real weakness in your argument is that you seem to think that college tutors are more in touch with the "real world", but these are the people for whom the phrase "ivory tower" was coined. Let us be fair. We all live in our own, very small part of the real world and out knowlege of the rest of it could be better.

is Finland a developing country because we are the number one in this study?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

is Finland a developing country because we are the number one in this study?

---

Vietnam & Cuba are not far in terms of quality of schooling, which means it is not ENOUGH for building a good economy. But, indeed, it helps a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Stick by it all you want, you are still wrong.

---

As far as my experiences go, I’m right ~D . Perhaps your experiences have led you to a different conclusion :bow: . I don’t mind agreeing to disagree in this case because of personal experience, that’s all I am judging my “bubble” statement on anyways.

Many of my teachers were in this bubble:
Spent their entire life in school learning or teaching
Always have benefits, including health, life and a retirement plan
Always have holidays off, plus spring break, winter break, summer break, etc.
Almost all union workers
Almost all democrats
Plus schools are their own little environments, designed for students and teachers to effectively live there 7-10 hours a day.
Throw in the fact that they have minimal contact with anyone outside the school environment (grocery store and gas station doesn’t count) and that’s a life in a bubble.

Now I agree that just about anyone that has worked a job for a long time is also in a bubble of their own too.

Many of my instructors in college were only part time and had “real jobs” in the field they were teaching. They were better able to relate classroom lessons with real world applications and would move the lesson structure to devote more time to more important areas. Most of my schoolteachers taught the same lessons from the same syllabus with the same texts for years, my mom had some of the same teachers I did and they taught the same class with the same books. The result was that I learned more usable knowledge from instructors that were more in touch with the real world than from those in the school “bubble” (outside the initial learning to read, write, spell, add, etc.).

My teachers in the main (refering to sciences in the main here) worked in their field before giving up and teaching. So I wouldn't really say they live in a bubble (though you might from their out of date english :wink:)

Pape is right, rote is not good for inovation etc but that's obvious. Oh well, I think it's better to discuss then teach by rote but I just hate rote with a passion. It's a big waste of time in most subjects (though I can see it's applications in maths and it is taught that way.) I am expected sraight A*s (damn high expectations) do I work hard? hell no, am I ''clever and gifted'' in any special way? probably not. It's just that kids have it so easy these days that they don't even bother to do their homework (note, I am a kid and also do my homework.)

Seriously school is easy these days, you can rack up 30% of your GCSEs to get a C before you step into an exam hall and 50% constitutes an A in some subjects. At times it's pathetic. I mean I have to work for that A* but not nearly as hard as I could/should. I go to a ''good'' school by the way. Without mentioning it's name, Mr Blair though it fit to send his children there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Schools here get money as long as people pass. So their aim is to make as many pass as possible, at the expense of people who actually have a real chance of doing well if some effort is just put into it.

My biology AS class started at 20 people. At the end of the year 2 dropped it voluntarily despite passing, 10 failed completely and 2 were kicked out because they only got an E. So 50% of the class got absolutley nothing from it, and dragged everyone else down simply because a C at GCSE is considered good enough to try and do an A level in a subject...

---

I don't take A levels (I'm 14) but somehow I'm taking GCSEs this year. Many of them have pass rates (C) approaching 30% on a syllabus that isn't all that hard anyways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

is Finland a developing country because we are the number one in this study?

---

More or less as all other old colonies around the world.... ~:grouphug: