Those Inbred Finns Keep Getting Stupider

The tri-annual PISA scores are in. These measure educational standards across the OECD countries.

In keeping with what TinCow has learned us about starting succesful threads, a good angle might be to focus on those most secretive northerners, perennially trying to remain below the radar, unless it's got to do with their three main claims to fame: Santa Claus, winter depression, and phenomenal test scores.

Now a new chapter shall have to be added to the Kalevala, the poem of the Finns: great scores no more.

I blame it on Finnish inbreeding.

Quote:

---

In maths, Finland only ranked sixth on the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA. Finnish pupils performed better in science, coming in second after Shanghai. The huge city -- taking part in the survey for the first time -- came top in all three of the disciplines: maths, science and literacy.

Finland fared better in previous years. In 2000 and 2003, Finnish pupils topped the ranking for reading comprehension, making the country’s educational system the envy of educators around the world.

Experts say the expansion of countries included in the test weakened Finland’s standing. The latest assessment covered 65 countries, whereas the first one administered in 2000 only invited 32 states to participate. Poorer reading comprehension skills also pulled down results. In 2009, the portion of Finnish pupils recorded as having excellent reading literacy skills dropped to 15 percent from 18 in 2000.

Girls read better than boys in every country, by an average of 39 points, the equivalent to one year of schooling.

http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/...g_2200222.html

---

Quote:

---

Finland's PISA rankings

2000
Reading 1
Math 4
Science 3

2003
Reading 1
Math 2
Science 1

2006
Reading 2
Math 2
Science 1

2009
Reading 3
Math 6
Science 2

---

Full rankings:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/5/46624382.pdf

Notable conclusions: East Asians keep making progression, grand slam the global rankings. Girls read better than boys, everywhere, by a huge margin. Finland is slipping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

unless it's got to do with their three main claims to fame: Santa Claus, winter depression, and phenomenal test scores.

---

Don't forget high school shootings.

Anyway, Finns only inbreed to keep their pure racial heritage!

You haven't seen the scores for the UK...

Quote:

---

Top Test Scores From Shanghai Stun Educators

With China’s debut in international standardized testing, students in Shanghai have surprised experts by outscoring their counterparts in dozens of other countries, in reading as well as in math and science, according to the results of a respected exam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/ed...education.html

---

The big news is that for the very first time China partook in the study. The results are stunnign, almost shocking. Chinese kids blow all the other away. As if they're not even there.

There are some if's-and but's, but still, stunning. Are the Shanghai students specially selected and trained for a show? Is that one-child policy a disguise for the world's greatest eugenetics program after all? Who knows?

What us certain, is that the result has to be taken very seriously indeed. China propelled itself from not even competing to absolutely peerless number one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You haven't seen the scores for the UK...

---

The UK and France are mediocrity central. Really rather dissapointing.

https://img602.imageshack.us/img602/...graphpopup.jpg

I doubt China is that good there central government statistics are generally bogus

The only reason that France scored better than the U.S. in math is because my wife now lives here as opposed to there.

Bah, the finns use almost no IT, projects or cooperation in their education.

PISA only checks 3 of 10-15 goals the schools have, and only parts of those three goals. It's an irrelevant and idiotic test.

ALSO, the amount of data is way too small to be statistically relevant and indicate any general trend.

i wonder if the new free schools will do anything to drag britain's scores from the wreckage of our comprehensive system in the next decade?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I doubt China is that good there central government statistics are generally bogus

---

Well the three Chinese regions represented are the richest, most advanced parts of the country. I mean testing Hong Kong, Macao and Shanghai only is a bit like the US testing MIT, Harvard and Yale students and then proclaiming: "HEY LOOK ALL OUR UNIVERSITIES ARE GOOD!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i wonder if the new free schools will do anything to drag britain's scores from the wreckage of our comprehensive system in the next decade?

---

It will make things far worse.

Please note that the three regions selected for China include two former Euro-colonies and that all three are high-tech, heavy capitalist enclaves relative to the bulk of China.

If other nations got to submit scores from analogous areas only, they might do surprisingly better....even those Lapp-lover Finns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It will make things far worse.

---

why?

Even if we accept that the results of Shanghai are slightly skewed, the results themselves are nonetheless there. Shanghai is a huge region of twenty million.
Also, China not just came on top. But came on top by an enormous margin. The difference in scores between Shanghai and France are as large as the difference between France and Papoea New Guinea. ~:eek:



French kids are less well educated than that centre of public intellectual endeavor and of teenage cultural refinement, the United States. :shame:

Ah well. We beat Britain and Sweden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Even if we accept that the results of Shanghai are slightly skewed, the results themselves are nonetheless there. Shanghai is a huge region of twenty million.
Also, China not just came on top. But came on top by an enormous margin. The difference in scores between Shanghai and France are as large as the difference between France and Papoea New Guinea. ~:eek:



French kids are less well educated than that centre of public intellectual endeavor and of teenage cultural refinement, the United States. :shame:

Ah well. We beat Britain and Sweden.

---

There is absolutely no way you can draw that conclusion with the pitiful amount of data you have, Louis.

You might say "in certain very specific areas, there might be an indication that country X may be better than country Y."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Even if we accept that the results of Shanghai are slightly skewed, the results themselves are nonetheless there. Shanghai is a huge region of twenty million.
Also, China not just came on top. But came on top by an enormous margin. The difference in scores between Shanghai and France are as large as the difference between France and Papoea New Guinea. ~:eek:



French kids are less well educated than that centre of public intellectual endeavor and of teenage cultural refinement, the United States. :shame:

Ah well. We beat Britain and Sweden.

---

I'll sheer you up.

Flemish scores:

Reading: 519
Math: 537
Science: 526

Walloon scores:

Reading: 489
Math: 488
Science: 482

It is time for the francophones to accept the superiority of their Flemish masters and to reform the state as we say it should be reformed.

I don't get the fuss, since when did one city represent all of China? Macao is more around the USA's level on average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't get the fuss, since when did one city represent all of China? Macao is more around the USA's level on average.

---

Throwing big numbers at people makes them scared.

Whether there's something real in those numbers or not is irrelevant. I blame your maths teacher.

Finnish people are also ugly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Finnish people are also ugly

---

Ahem. :beadyeyes:

Let's not assume the indulgence currently offered to the "Hate Makes the Backroom Great" thread extends in any way to other topics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Finnish people are also ugly

---

Pardon me? The correct wording is superficially challenged and Strike have you ever even met a Finn?About the results. I bet it was only bad year.Were these kids playing outside when Chernobyll happened? Still Horetore.You make me laugh.What do you know about Finnish schooling methods? As long as all our Western neighbours are far behind us, there is nothing to worry about. I am feeling so morbid that only various Chinese factions and vassals can beat our kids.:holiday:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Still Horetore.You make me laugh.What do you know about Finnish schooling methods?

---

I'm a teacher; you Finns have been in focus for the last five years now, I would've had to live under a rock to avoid becoming familiar with the ups and downs of the finnish education system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

As long as all our Western neighbours are far behind us, there is nothing to worry about.

---

As I've already explained; you have absolutely no data to back up such a claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm a teacher; you Finns have been in focus for the last five years now, I would've had to live under a rock to avoid becoming familiar with the ups and downs of the finnish education system.



As I've already explained; you have absolutely no data to back up such a claim.

---

Well then show me some hard data,.I know its been more then 10 years i have been in any kind of school and back then already we had use of IT, made projects etc. Please show your data before start asking something from me.

You being teacher hardly makes you more credible source.If i know anything about teachers.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Well then show me some hard data

---

There is none, largely because most of the stuff the school is supposed to teach you isn't possible to measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There is none, largely because most of the stuff the school is supposed to teach you isn't possible to measure.

---

So this is just because you say so and you are more of a expert then someone who has attended to Finnish schooling? End of discussion if i may?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Ahem. :beadyeyes:

Let's not assume the indulgence currently offered to the "Hate Makes the Backroom Great" thread extends in any way to other topics.

---

Can a man not express his opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Pardon me? The correct wording is superficially challenged and Strike have you ever even met a Finn?About the results. I bet it was only bad year.Were these kids playing outside when Chernobyll happened? Still Horetore.You make me laugh.What do you know about Finnish schooling methods? As long as all our Western neighbours are far behind us, there is nothing to worry about. I am feeling so morbid that only various Chinese factions and vassals can beat our kids.:holiday:

---

No but I have met a Dane and Norweigan and the both assured me Finland is "meh"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Can a man not express his opinion?



No but I have met a Dane and Norweigan and the both assured me Finland is "meh"

---

I will let you on a secret if you dont tell anybody:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

They are just jealous.~:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

So this is just because you say so and you are more of a expert then someone who has attended to Finnish schooling? End of discussion if i may?

---

The proper way to judge the efficiency of our education system, in my mind, is to simply look at the businesses in our countries. Who are they hiring? The products of our education system, or the products of another system? If its the former I'd say it's all good holmes, if it's rthe latter we're in trouble.

And different economies require different focuses in education; what is needed in Norway or Finland probably isn't what's needed in China or the US. A concrete example of this is reading skills: countries with just one language in their education should score higher than Norwegians or Finns, as we start english-training at age 6 and thus devotes less time on our native language. And a school with just three classes; reading, maths and science would top a survey like this, but can one thus conclude that this sytem is better? Do we only need those three skills in our adult lives? No, of course not.

And kagemusha, attending a Norwegian school did not in any way teach me how the system worked, switching tables turned my world upside down. Just like it probably will should you ever try teaching yourself.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to make it clear that my criticism is of the PISA-system itself and(more importantly) the conclusions drawn from its results, not the finnish education system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Can a man not express his opinion?

---

The preferred form when making sweeping and potentially insulting generalisations is to present evidence. Ideally from a source unlikely to provoke derisive laughter or concerns for the poster's mental well-being. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The preferred form when making sweeping and potentially insulting generalisations is to present evidence. Ideally from a source unlikely to provoke derisive laughter or concerns for the poster's mental well-being. :beam:

---

Here's your source. One can not travel to Finland and escape being locked up in a swelteringly hot room together with half a dozen sweaty, naked Finns. A terrifying thought, which looks something like this:


https://img507.imageshack.us/img507/...pionship13.jpg


Picture taken at the Finnish Sauna Championships.

This year, the Russians send their toughest man to compete too. Twenty years in the Russian army, massive vodka consumption, and Siberian cold had hardened him. He was going to teach the wimpy Finns a lesson or two.

He died. All the Finns lived.



If it's your thingy, more sweaty naked Finns in this kinky linky: http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/artic...-championships

Don't they have a Ladies Division at the Sauna Championships?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

I'll sheer you up.

Flemish scores:

Reading: 519
Math: 537
Science: 526

---

And the Flemish scores would be higher still if they had taught you people proper English spelling. :smash:


For a century and a half, Belgium has dumped its own proletariat, and the large import of cheap uneducated foreign labour, on the industrialised south. Then heavy industry in Europe dissapeared in the 1960s. Suddenly, like Sleeping Beauty, dormant, rural and quaint mediaeval Flanders emerged as Belgium's economic centre. The steelmills, coal mines, smokestacks of Wallonia's sillon industriel, once the proud symbols of the richest and most industrialised area on the continent - suddenly they became tombstones, massive tombstones adorning the landscape of a dead area.

The north of France, the British Midlands, the German Ruhr area, American cities such as Pittsburgh and Detroit, all these areas of former heavy industry, these too were left with great social problems, left with an impoverished population. But these were part of a larger country. Talent and new investment could move in, the poor could migrate internally, be spread out more. In Europe, these cities like Lille and Manchester and Essen have been reinvigorated. In America, they are abandoned, Detroit is simply left to die, slowly rotting away under the weight of the undereducated population that got left behind. In Belgium, uniquely, federalisation happened simultaneously with de-industrialisation. Suddenly Wallonia was trapped. A rundown industrial area was suddenly declared a nation, left to its own devices. Nobody wants it, neither Flanders nor France. Its ecomony is bankrupt, its population is a vast proletariat.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wallonia:


https://img638.imageshack.us/img638/...ontusinesf.jpg



Flanders:


https://img97.imageshack.us/img97/37...02472image.jpg

I'll stick my chin out here..



It is easy to suspect China of not-so-fair play. I myself trust the Chinese government about as far as I can throw a horse.

With that said however, I believe these results.

If we would take the Chinese immigrants in, say, the US I am fairly confident they would score better than the average american. This goes for any western nation by the way.

It's a cultural difference, in my opinion, and from what I have seen. Where people in the west get more and more into self-fulfillment, the people of the east rather strive for self-control.

The Chinese students get more support from home, and generally put more energy into learning.

So no, I do not see anything weird about these numbers. Only small shock I had was that Japan scored so low. Only top 5-10.


If this keeps up, one wonders how long we in the west will do the thinking while China does the menial labor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

And the Flemish scores would be higher still if they had taught you people proper English spelling. :smash:


For a century and a half, Belgium has dumped its own proletariat, and the large import of cheap uneducated foreign labour, on the industrialised south. Then heavy industry in Europe dissapeared in the 1960s. Suddenly, like Sleeping Beauty, dormant, rural and quaint mediaeval Flanders emerged as Belgium's economic centre. The steelmills, coal mines, smokestacks of Wallonia's sillon industriel, once the proud symbols of the richest and most industrialised area on the continent - suddenly they became tombstones, massive tombstones adorning the landscape of a dead area.

The north of France, the British Midlands, the German Ruhr area, American cities such as Pittsburgh and Detroit, all these areas of former heavy industry, these too were left with great social problems, left with an impoverished population. But these were part of a larger country. Talent and new investment could move in, the poor could migrate internally, be spread out more. In Europe, these cities like Lille and Manchester and Essen have been reinvigorated. In America, they are abandoned, Detroit is simply left to die, slowly rotting away under the weight of the undereducated population that got left behind. In Belgium, uniquely, federalisation happened simultaneously with de-industrialisation. Suddenly Wallonia was trapped. A rundown industrial area was suddenly declared a nation, left to its own devices. Nobody wants it, neither Flanders nor France. Its ecomony is bankrupt, its population is a vast proletariat.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wallonia:


https://img638.imageshack.us/img638/...ontusinesf.jpg



Flanders:


https://img97.imageshack.us/img97/37...02472image.jpg

---

<a href="http://www.gifbin.com/982166"><img src="http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233928590_citizen kane clapping.gif" alt="funny animated gif"></a>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Here's your source. One can not travel to Finland and escape being locked up in a swelteringly hot room together with half a dozen sweaty, naked Finns. A terrifying thought, which looks something like this:


https://img507.imageshack.us/img507/...pionship13.jpg


Picture taken at the Finnish Sauna Championships.

This year, the Russians send their toughest man to compete too. Twenty years in the Russian army, massive vodka consumption, and Siberian cold had hardened him. He was going to teach the wimpy Finns a lesson or two.

He died. All the Finns lived.



If it's your thingy, more sweaty naked Finns in this kinky linky: http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/artic...-championships

---

But Louis.It is just natural if you are timid of being naked. Such is the cultural oppression of the Western Barbarians that they are afraid of getting aroused being naked around grown men in hot and sweaty surroundings.With these days of photoshopped people on the covers of magazines. Maybe we Finnish should start importing Sauna therapy to our neighbours who live under tremendous pressure of their naked bodies?:smug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

But Louis.It is just natural if you are timid of being naked. Such is the cultural oppression of the Western Barbarians that they are afraid of getting aroused being naked around grown men in hot and sweaty surroundings.With these days of photoshopped people on the covers of magazines. Maybe we Finnish should start importing Sauna therapy to our neighbours who live under tremendous pressure of their naked bodies?:smug:

---

He's French, Kage, guess his sexual orientation. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

He's French, Kage, guess his sexual orientation. ~;)

---

Well ofcourse Louis as connoisseur of life and true cosmopolitan loves all life.:painting:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Here's your source. One can not travel to Finland and escape being locked up in a swelteringly hot room together with half a dozen sweaty, naked Finns. A terrifying thought, which looks something like this:


https://img507.imageshack.us/img507/...pionship13.jpg

Picture taken at the Finnish Sauna Championships.

This year, the Russians send their toughest man to compete too. Twenty years in the Russian army, massive vodka consumption, and Siberian cold had hardened him. He was going to teach the wimpy Finns a lesson or two.

He died. All the Finns lived.



If it's your thingy, more sweaty naked Finns in this kinky linky: http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/artic...-championships

---

being fortunate enough to have lots of finnish friends locally, including some who have a sauna, i have every sympathy with those dudes.

sauna's are great fun, especially when beer is involved, and when there are edgy uni chicks who are determined to prove they have the stones to do it 'finnish' style!

it's nuts to the wind or nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Don't they have a Ladies Division at the Sauna Championships?

---

They are the ladies...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i wonder if the new free schools will do anything to drag britain's scores from the wreckage of our comprehensive system in the next decade?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beskar

It will make things far worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

why?

---

Because it will make things better only for the very best. It will not drag up the lowest common denominator, it will exacerbate the already stark division in education and life chances that being middle or working class entails. The comprehensive system is precisely about minimising the effect of parentage, or at its best, spreading the positives around.

It is a simple truth (in Britain at least) that middle class parents tend to be a)aware of the need and methods as well as b)better equipped to get involved and work the system for their child's benefit. When middle class kids are concentrated, they therefore rise and rise -but leaving the greater majority of working class kids to (essentially) fester. Keeping a mix, i.e. as a comprehensive system should (that means without selective schools int he same catchment area), means the middle class parents militation will ensure the school does its best -and crucialy, not just for the middle class kids but also the working class kids too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

He's French, Kage, guess his sexual orientation. ~;)

---

Is it similar to the Chinese food palate, i.e. eating everything that the sun shines on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Because it will make things better only for the very best. It will not drag up the lowest common denominator, it will exacerbate the already stark division in education and life chances that being middle or working class entails. The comprehensive system is precisely about minimising the effect of parentage, or at its best, spreading the positives around.

It is a simple truth (in Britain at least) that middle class parents tend to be a)aware of the need and methods as well as b)better equipped to get involved and work the system for their child's benefit. When middle class kids are concentrated, they therefore rise and rise -but leaving the greater majority of working class kids to (essentially) fester. Keeping a mix, i.e. as a comprehensive system should (that means without selective schools int he same catchment area), means the middle class parents militation will ensure the school does its best -and crucialy, not just for the middle class kids but also the working class kids too.

---

if you believe that comprehensive education has achieved its 'equality' of outcome precisely by dragging everything back to a lowest common denominator then anything that might improve the situation can only be a good thing.

at the very worst free schools will not make the net average of educational achievement worse in this country than they already are.

if they make things better then we can finally have a sensible conversation about the failure of the comprehensive system and utter moronic stupidity of closing high-achieving grammar schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

lowest common denominator

---

The lowest common denominator is a bigger number than the numbers you already have.

You are reffering to "greatest common divisor" or the smallest factor shared by two numbers.


Unless, of course, you mean "....dragging everything towards a..." ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

if you believe that comprehensive education has achieved its 'equality' of outcome precisely by dragging everything back to a lowest common denominator then anything that might improve the situation can only be a good thing.

at the very worst free schools will not make the net average of educational achievement worse in this country than they already are.

if they make things better then we can finally have a sensible conversation about the failure of the comprehensive system and utter moronic stupidity of closing high-achieving grammar schools.

---

You discredit the comprehensive system for failing to provide top end results without acknowledging the wreck that selective schools make of children who do not enjoy the support and pressure of their parents. You state that nothing can be worse than the comprehensive system but you are blind to the absolute inequality and downright elitism of the system precedant to the comprehensive one.

The fundamental issue is who do you focus on, the worst off who can't help themselves, or the well off who can and will help themselves. There are equally good reasons for assisting either but ultimately any system that does not support and enable both is defficient.

The "free" schools initiative gives more power to middle class parents. If these schools maintain a body of children from mixed backgrounds, then they should provide decent education for all.

i don't care to retard the development of children of any variety by inhibiting access to quality education, regardless of where that education may come from.

the comprehensive system is a wreck, it would be very hard for a free school to do worse, ergo; i support free schools.

incidentally:
http://www.westlondonfreeschool.co.uk/

Quote:

---

The West London Free School will be a school with a classical curriculum, high standards of behaviour and a competitive atmosphere, but a non-selective intake.

Children with statements of Special Educational Needs

14. The West London Free School will admit any statemented pupil whose statement names the West London Free School and for whom the School has agreed to be named in the statement.

Over-subscription criteria

15. If there are more applicants than places, places will be offered in accordance with the following criteria in order of priority:

1. Children in public care (children looked after by a local authority under section 22 of the Children Act 1989).
2. Up to 12 children who have applied to be considered under the musical aptitude scheme.
3. After places have been filled under the first two criteria, 50% of any remaining places will be offered to those children who live nearest to the School, measured by the straight-line distance from the School gate to the child’s home. For 2011-2012 admissions, the distance criteria will be measured from the postcode of the Town Hall in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to the child’s home.
4. After places have been filled under the first three criteria, two-thirds of any remaining places will be offered to children living within a three-mile radius of the School. Where the number of applicants in this category exceeds the number of places, offers will be determined by random allocation.
5. After places have been filled under the first four criteria, any remaining places will be offered to children living within a radius of between three and five miles of the School. Where the number of applicants in this category exceeds the number of places, offers will be determined by random allocation.
6. After places have been filled under the first five criteria, any remaining places will be offered to children living beyond five miles from the School. Where the number of applicants in this category exceeds the number of places, offers will be determined by random allocation.

---

so tell me again, why do you hate freedom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

They are the ladies...

---

I bet you would not last long even with our ladies.~:pat:

As one BBC article pointed out recently, for some reason we still seem to have this Victorian notion that education is the key to all of societies ills. But the reality is, for most people, everything they learn beyond the age of 13/4 is pretty much useless. After that, everything you learn will almost certainly have no practical use when you enter the workforce, all your school qualifications do are show you are a generally somewhat competent person.

Screw all this nonsense debating how we can make schools stricter and what not, at the end of the day you don't need an academic environment from the age of 5 years old to show you how to flip burgers, or build a house, or fix a lightbulb, or design a building, or run a company. From the most basic to most advanced jobs, almost everything we learn at school is pointless.

Now is the time to start looking for more practical alternatives to the old "education, education, education".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

everything they learn beyond the age of 13/4 is pretty much useless.

---

WHAT?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Pray tell, just when does a human stop learning? I'll give you the answer: around the time of death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

WHAT?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Pray tell, just when does a human stop learning? I'll give you the answer: around the time of death.

---

Everything we learn at school, in a classroom, beyond 13/14, is indeed useless. Put more people on useful apprenticeships, they don't need know Arthur Miller's foreshadowing techniques in Death of a Salesman, or how to calculate a tangent off a parabola (or something like that) in order to do whatever jobs they will most likely end up doing.

In fact, I would say our Victorian attitude to education is a very bourgeoisie take on things, that has only widened inequality. In effect, it leaves everyone without pushy parents or a brain for academics without any real skills to make a future with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Everything we learn at school, in a classroom

---

That is but one of the many platforms in which we learn.

What I believe you are saying, is that we should specialize our learning at an earlier age instead of generalized education. Correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That is but one of the many platforms in which we learn.

What I believe you are saying, is that we should specialize our learning at an earlier age instead of generalized education. Correct?

---

Yes. For many people, that means school won't be the right environment to continue their learning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yes. For many people, that means school won't be the right environment to continue their learning.

---

Well then, that is a more agreable position ~;)

But I feel I must point out a common misconception(don't know if it applies to you though):

People often talk about how the school is too "theoretical" and that it has to be more "practical" to accomodate "weak" students. "practical" is a bad term IMO, since it is usually connected with something dumb people need, along the lines of "well he's not that bright, but he can use his hands". What it actually is, however, is a recognition if the fact that different people learn in different ways, and that the obvious solution is different learning methods.

Therre are plenty of carpenters(I'd say most in fact) with a much higher understanding of geometry than I do, but who struggled to learn geometry in a classroom situation. Students with a need for a concrete visualization in order to learn are not "dumb" students; they just learn in a diffent way.

I am very much in favour of non-standard methods of teaching. In fact, I believe the "classic" way where a teacher stands at the front holding a lecture should be banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I am very much in favour of non-standard methods of teaching. In fact, I believe the "classic" way where a teacher stands at the front holding a lecture should be banned.

---

Indeed, I share your dislike of keeping doing things the same way just for the sake of it. I just don't see the benefit many peopel get from sitting in a classroom during the later years of school learning obscure things that they will never need to employ in their time at work.

Because of the current focus on traditional education, the kids that don't find that effective end up with no option but to drop out. And then no employers will want them, because the only qualifications are the ones you get from the traditional education system.

It just seems blindingly obvious to me that probably a majority of students get nothing from the latter years of their education. I think one of the reasons this issue hasn't been adressed is that politicians are afraid to do it, due to the positive connotations that the word education has. Hence soundbites like "education, education, education".

All very Victorian, all very bourgeoisie. And all not much use for most students today!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Everything we learn at school, in a classroom, beyond 13/14, is indeed useless. Put more people on useful apprenticeships, they don't need know Arthur Miller's foreshadowing techniques in Death of a Salesman, or how to calculate a tangent off a parabola (or something like that) in order to do whatever jobs they will most likely end up doing.

In fact, I would say our Victorian attitude to education is a very bourgeoisie take on things, that has only widened inequality. In effect, it leaves everyone without pushy parents or a brain for academics without any real skills to make a future with.

---

You got it wrong.

We do not, not, not teach the youths about Shakespeare or advances math because they need it. And yes indeed it is wasted on the majority. However, we do teach it to find those who can learn from it.

What do you prefer, to find the kids who belongs in the upper echelon, or to skip past them because their [insert number] other classmates will not get it anyway.

And as a side note, we teach them about the fine arts and advanced science in the hope that it will make them more contributional members of society. Better they know it and dont need it, than them needing it and not knowing it.

Get my point? Or at least one of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

We do not, not, not teach the youths about Shakespeare or advances math because they need it. And yes indeed it is wasted on the majority. However, we do teach it to find those who can learn from it.

---

My impression is that school doesn't really teach any advanced math, for some people it's really essential, for some it may seem advanced, but a maths professor usually calls it trivial. Of course that makes it more important to know. It's not just about giving them what they need to do a certain job, as Rhyfelwyr says, but also about making them able citizens which are ready to do a lot of things that go beyond a factory job. A large part of schooling is also about teaching critical thinking, at least it was on our school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

What do you prefer, to find the kids who belongs in the upper echelon, or to skip past them because their [insert number] other classmates will not get it anyway.

---

I don't really think understanding Shakespeare reveals the upper echelon elite superkids, in many cases the upper echelon elite superkids from space are revealed because they're doing really bad since they're bored.

I think Shibumi might have a point here, in that some of the topics covered are not for the general benefit but to offer those who appreciate it a bit extra.
Prime example of such a topic would be Euclidean geometry in a particular Math subject which 14 (before the number dropped to 11) people took from about the 500 people total in a year (technical term is cohort, IIRC).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i don't care to retard the development of children of any variety by inhibiting access to quality education, regardless of where that education may come from.

the comprehensive system is a wreck, it would be very hard for a free school to do worse, ergo; i support free schools.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

incidentally:
http://www.westlondonfreeschool.co.uk/

---

The danger of free schools is not that they are run equitably and effectively, it is that they are not.

Quote:

---

so tell me again, why do you hate freedom?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifr4aGA2o_A

and................. that is not a good enough reason to disallow them.

particularly so when the comp system is a great cavernous rectum of failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

What do you prefer, to find the kids who belongs in the upper echelon, or to skip past them because their [insert number] other classmates will not get it anyway.

---

Actually that is precisely what the current system does. Instead of focusing on the brighter kids, it wastes time and funds on kids who simply don't need to know about fine arts or advanced science (in fact, nobody needs to know about fine arts, they are leeches on society).

It tries to level the playing field, and in doing so makes it equally average for everyone. Bright kids can't fulfil their potential. Dumb kids can't even understand it.

But for some people it's got to be this way, all in the name of equality...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Actually that is precisely what the current system does. Instead of focusing on the brighter kids, it wastes time and funds on kids who simply don't need to know about fine arts or advanced science (in fact, nobody needs to know about fine arts, they are leeches on society).

It tries to level the playing field, and in doing so makes it equally average for everyone. Bright kids can't fulfil their potential. Dumb kids can't even understand it.

But for some people it's got to be this way, all in the name of equality...

---

That was a lot of prejudice in a short statement, Rhy....

First off, the main problem with the "bright" kids is that they believe they are smarter than they actually are, if they use more time to think through the assigments they are given they will discover much more. Instead their focus is on finishing.

Secondly, what we know about a student is where he is now. There is absolutely no way of knowing where he will be in the future.

Let's say we have a scale that goes from 1 to 100, 100 representing an "enlightened mind", the goal we strive for. We can then assign our 12-year olds various values and put them on a scale from bad to good. One might be a 17, another might be a 21 and a smart one might be 29. But what does that matter? The goal is to get to 100, and they're all a long way from that target, that some of them is a couple of steps ahead will not matter in the long run. Also, how will you know whether it's the child who is "dumb" or the system that is wrong?

My teacher is an excellent example of this. He got a 2 in Norwegian in high school, which means that he was just above failing the subject. Now he just finished writing his 5th book. Why should the school give up on people like him? He has two masters degrees now, but I'm quite sure you would've classified him as "dumb" if you look at the low grades he got in high school.


That we are "catering to hopless students" and "ruining the bright ones" are among the biggest lies in the education system. I laugh every time I hear it, because I know for a fact that assigments are scaled according to the needs of advanced students. The people who spread this myth probably wasn't one of the bright students who got more difficult assignments, though their ego's make them believe that they're the next Einstein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That we are "catering to hopless students" and "ruining the bright ones" are among the biggest lies in the education system. I laugh every time I hear it, because I know for a fact that assigments are scaled according to the needs of advanced students. The people who spread this myth probably wasn't one of the bright students who got more difficult assignments, though their ego's make them believe that they're the next Einstein.

---

For some weird reason we have a major thing in the West where people act counter to there own interests.

I'm thinking of people on low incomes in America thinking the Tea Party is for them or students in Europe marching to protect highly paid civil servants.:confused:

There was also a lot of prejudice in what you just said HoreTore, at the end of the day there is probably some truth in what we are both saying, whether it is prejudiced or not. I mean, all bright kids think they are smarter than they are... really? All of them just want to finish the assignment without really pushing themselves?

That whole scale thing you came up with is completely artibtrary. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that every person has a level, after which they just can't take in any more advanced information. I know you are idealistic with these things, but reality has got to kick in. You can try every technique under the sun, but you just can't make a retard understand Shakespeare.

As for the example with your teacher, that seems to me simply proof that the current focus on traditional education is a waste of time for people like him. Don't hold him back in a classroom, let him do his own thing. Don't abandon him by any means, but by the time he has learned his reading/writing/arithmetic, is should be clear whether or not traditional schooling is for him.

As for the bias in exams... you can only attribute that to the failings of students so far. Again, it seems to me to just be proof of how out of touch traditional education is with the needs of most people.

You can talk about bias in exams or different teaching techniques, but at the end of the day these are all particular matters and dont' address the fundemanetal problem, which for me is the fact that 90% of what I learned beyond the age of 14 was a waste of my time and taxpayers' money.

The thing is, Rhy, that there is absolutely no way of knowing where our students will be in the future, we have no way of knowing their true potential. We can only assess the current situation, and as such we can't have any other focus than to try to make them take the next step, and try teaching it a different way if needed.



By the way, a question for you: would you think that an average 9-year old would be able to learn nevrobiology at a level where they could hold lectures about the subject?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The thing is, Rhy, that there is absolutely no way of knowing where our students will be in the future, we have no way of knowing their true potential. We can only assess the current situation, and as such we can't have any other focus than to try to make them take the next step, and try teaching it a different way if needed.

---

We can't know their true potential, we can just guess, its the same way with most things in life. Instead of trying 1,000 different techniques in the classroom, why not just give some kids an alternative that will give them more direct skills and give them a future with employment, instead of going to ridiculous lengths to pursue higher education?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

By the way, a question for you: would you think that an average 9-year old would be able to learn nevrobiology at a level where they could hold lectures about the subject?

---

I have no idea what nevrobiology is, although I can guess that an average 9-year old doesn't need to know anything about it. Keep things practical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

We can't know their true potential, we can just guess, its the same way with most things in life. Instead of trying 1,000 different techniques in the classroom, why not just give some kids an alternative that will give them more direct skills and give them a future with employment, instead of going to ridiculous lengths to pursue higher education?

---

Do you think it's exhausting to employ "1000 different techniques" in the classroom? Bah, it's easy, challenging and, above all, what we teachers see as "fun" ~;)

But I'm not talking about higher education. Being a mechanic or plumber requires a wealth of education as well(though in this case, most people call it "learning").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I have no idea what nevrobiology is, although I can guess that an average 9-year old doesn't need to know anything about it. Keep things practical.

---

I am.

Sugata Mitra shows how a bunch of random kids in some Indian backwater learns enough about neurobiology to pass the exam needed to teach others about the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk60sYrU2RU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Do you think it's exhausting to employ "1000 different techniques" in the classroom? Bah, it's easy, challenging and, above all, what we teachers see as "fun" ~;)

But I'm not talking about higher education. Being a mechanic or plumber requires a wealth of education as well(though in this case, most people call it "learning").

---

I'm sorry but your idealism is just leading to you talking nonsense. No teacher has the time or resources to try 1,000 different techniques just so they can exhaust every possible avenue for teaching every single student. In an ideal world you might be right, but its like with medicine, you don't spend thousands on a drug that will keep a cancer patient alive for an extra day, since lots of people will die of other stuff. You can't spend all your time on one pupil at the expense of the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I am.

Sugata Mitra shows how a bunch of random kids in some Indian backwater learns enough about neurobiology to pass the exam needed to teach others about the subject:

---

Well if these kids are no pursuing a career related to neurobiology, thats great. That's an example of specialising early, they didn't have to know about the Great Gatsby or quadratic equations to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I'm sorry but your idealism is just leading to you talking nonsense. No teacher has the time or resources to try 1,000 different techniques just so they can exhaust every possible avenue for teaching every single student.

---

We actually do, believe it or not ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well if these kids are no pursuing a career related to neurobiology, thats great. That's an example of specialising early, they didn't have to know about the Great Gatsby or quadratic equations to do that.

---

You missed the point....

His point was that any child can learn any subject, that being "dumb" is largely irrelevant to what one can learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

We actually do, believe it or not ~;)

---

Then you must be some sort of super-human teaching demi-God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You missed the point....

His point was that any child can learn any subject, that being "dumb" is largely irrelevant to what one can learn.

---

How do you know these kids were dumb? Are you implying they are dumb because they are from an "Indonesian backwater". OMG, you racist! :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Then you must be some sort of super-human teaching demi-God.

---

Hardly! This happens at every school.

Won't get to everyone though. Someone will always slip through the net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

How do you know these kids were dumb? Are you implying they are dumb because they are from an "Indonesian backwater". OMG, you racist! :stare:

---

Indian backwater, Rhy... And no, that's far from it, fortunately... But they're a normal class from India, so the "intelligence mix" should be the same as at one of our schools, were there are students you refer to as "dumb", therefore some of those indians must also be "dumb" ~;)

There's a good example closer to home though. Last year, NRK showed a rather brilliant TV-show. They found 20 "dumb losers", put them in the same class and gave them some rather brilliant teachers. The result? In one year, their grades went from failing half and sucking at the rest to well above average. From being dumb and depressed, a new word had opened before their eyes.

It's possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hardly! This happens at every school.

Won't get to everyone though. Someone will always slip through the net.

---

It sure as heck didn't happen at any school I went to, and I don't see how the teachers possibly could have done what you are suggesting. When you have 30 kids in a class, you can't use different techniques for every kid that struggles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There's a good example closer to home though. Last year, NRK showed a rather brilliant TV-show. They found 20 "dumb losers", put them in the same class and gave them some rather brilliant teachers. The result? In one year, their grades went from failing half and sucking at the rest to well above average. From being dumb and depressed, a new word had opened before their eyes.

It's possible.

---

So when they got teaching privileges and the best in the business, their results improved? Hardly surprising. Those teachers would most likely also be able to push the brighter students further than they would usually do.

Ultimately, your whole argument here seems to rest on the idea that all kids have the same potential for acheiving at school... it just doesn't seem realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

It sure as heck didn't happen at any school I went to, and I don't see how the teachers possibly could have done what you are suggesting. When you have 30 kids in a class, you can't use different techniques for every kid that struggles.

---

A challenge then! Come with me to work, and see for yourself ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

So when they got teaching privileges and the best in the business, their results improved? Hardly surprising. Those teachers would most likely also be able to push the brighter students further than they would usually do.

Ultimately, your whole argument here seems to rest on the idea that all kids have the same potential for acheiving at school... it just doesn't seem realistic.

---

I don't really see why it's not.

And I certainly can't see how we're supposed to sort those who can from those who can't. First of all it would require psychic ability, secondly any ethical teacher would resign.


But my argument isn't that a car mechanic needs to read Shakespeare(which is crap and nonsense at the same time). But being a car mechanic requires as much knowledge and education as I require to be a teacher. Education is a process that lasts until death no matter what you do in life. But we all have different interest; some enjoy creating things, some enjoy acting, some enjoy teaching, etc etc, and you learn what you like to do a lot easier than what doesn't interest you. But should specialization start earlier than we do now(age 15 here)? Don't know, I haven't really come up with any answer to that, but I'm not at all opposed to making the split earlier than we do now, as long as we're allowed to swap back and forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

WHAT?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Pray tell, just when does a human stop learning? I'll give you the answer: around the time of death.

---

or of election to public office.