Effectiveness of Educational Systems

Well, I am a college student. Finished school last year, I live in the UK. We aren't at school to learn per say, we are their to pass exams and pay the teachers wages. They have lost the fundamentals of teaching, I'd assume this from Private schools, but not public. I have been to many schools, as Dad is in the Navy. It was the same everywhere.

I mean how well does an exam really do to prove, what a student has learned throughout his/her school life. They are flawed, what's even worst is I do a Professional Cookery & Hospitality course at college. Different people have different taste buds and tastes. It's like comparing art, when looking at presentation. Humans are biased, it's in their nature. Education will never be fair, some people just have bad luck. If a teacher doesn't like a student, they will know about it. There is also too much pressure put on students these days, it's drilled in their brain that they will fail in society without x amount of qualifications. Well my 18 qualifications have done nothing, since I left school.
 
^Exactly the point.
My brother was the 4th best welder in the state of Michigan in 2009. He graduated in 2009.
He isn't welding now. He hasn't even had a job with welding.
 
I think the biggest problem with the education system is that students themselves (at least in America) aren't truly motivated to learn, they'd rather waste their time talking to friends, watching TV, playing video games, etc. No idea how to fix that problem, it's hard one to solve.

Problems such as rigid education structures and memorization of random facts only add to the problem.
 
Bolt the Cat said:
Problems such as rigid education structures and memorization of random facts only add to the problem.
Click to expand...

Thank you! All the stupid memorization of stuff that really has no value is a complete waste of effort. So another thing we can say here is that the education system fails to use time wisely. Instead of placing the highest emphasis on important and useful concepts, I'm over here memorizing that some ancient and completely unrecognized/unimportant musician was born in the year 1550. Lol?

Another thing I should point out, is who actually remembers all of that unimportant stuff? Like seriously whenever I finish pointless classes I pretty much forget everything that I just "learned" and It never comes up again. Most of us aren't training to appear on Jeopardy so why doesn't education grasp that concept?
 
I spent 4 years learning French, I can't speak a word of it anymore. I forgot completely, I learned Spanish I forgot how to speak Spanish. We forget what we have learned, if we don't put it into practice regularly. I am not going to be a Historian so why does the History of ancient Egypt affect me ?. Unless I am going on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, it's pointless. Use the money, time and resources teaching our students to become what they want, not what society needs them to be.

We are taught to be all the same, to feel that being different or our own person isn't what society needs. Who are they to tell us what we should be ?. I was told I would fail English at school by my English teacher, I ended up getting a B. I took a year off school for personal reasons, they said attendance is everything. I left school in the top 5% of my year, I was hardly there. It wasn't school who bettered me, it was the determination to succeed and prove them wrong. The hardest thing is to be what society doesn't accept and that's an abnormality.
 
I wouldn't argue about how history is unneeded, though. History is something that is valuable to anyone's knowledge. However, it usually becomes too blown out of proportions. US History 9th grade 1st semester when I took it (first time) was the years after the Civil War to pre-WWI. When I had to re-take it (our teacher couldn't teach for shit. He was a good mentor, but bad teacher), it spanned Reconstruction to 1947.
That is crap.
That means that they put more stuff that is unimportant to most in the curriculum. They pushed aside the whole Jim Crow laws and KKK movement for corruption and Progressivism.
I'd hate to see what they did to 2nd semester.
Point is, some classes are there to troll you, I feel. Geometry, Calculus, Trig, Chemistry, etc. ELA is lolsies. I don't even have good grammar skills that were taught by the school. I taught it to myself (DNA also helped with my grammar issues, of course). If they're too busy focusing on personality in one class, where's the point to teach us stuff that we will never use unless it's in the job description?
I don't care how many electrons Oxygen has, nor your stupid, long functions to find the length of an imaginary object.
 
Elite Stride said:
Thank you! All the stupid memorization of stuff that really has no value is a complete waste of effort. So another thing we can say here is that the education system fails to use time wisely. Instead of placing the highest emphasis on important and useful concepts, I'm over here memorizing that some ancient and completely unrecognized/unimportant musician was born in the year 1550. Lol?

Another thing I should point out, is who actually remembers all of that unimportant stuff? Like seriously whenever I finish pointless classes I pretty much forget everything that I just "learned" and It never comes up again. Most of us aren't training to appear on Jeopardy so why doesn't education grasp that concept?
Click to expand...

It depends what you're using your education for. Everything you're being taught is useful to someone, but most of it isn't really useful to everyone. Why am I learning details about history if I'm going to be a mathematician? Why do I have to learn advanced calculus if I'm going to be a journalist? That's one thing I think needs to be addressed, education needs to be a bit more specialized than it is. Even at the high school level, most people can at least narrow down whether or not they want to study in technical sciences (math, bio, chemistry, physics, etc.) arts and humanities (art, music, literature) or social sciences (history, economics, political science) if not a college major.
 
Bolt the Cat said:
It depends what you're using your education for. Everything you're being taught is useful to someone, but most of it isn't really useful to everyone
Click to expand...

I know. What I'm pretty much saying here is that in high school, it is a lot more important to know your maths, sciences, and how to write/speak/read and develop and express your thoughts in a clear and logical manner than memorizing stupid and unimportant dates and other subjects that nobody is going to remember. Those subjects are the only things that I have actually applied years later.

You're right, it's what you plan to use your education for, that's why it would be much more effective to leave those more specialized areas of study for college when people decide to study them for their professions.

Another thing that high schools lack is actual, legitimate career education. There are countless professions that people can go into, but the only things that kids are ever taught are the mainstream careers like lawyers, doctors, firemen, police officers, and teachers. I came out of high school hopelessly unprepared to begin study for a specific career path because I wasn't interested in the mainstream. And I resent my school so much for that. Why was it more important to be doing trivial, useless stuff for so many years that I have now completely forgotten, when I could have been learning about the different things a person can do with their life?

Well most schools will say that it's important to receive a broad and liberal education, and to a degree I certainly agree with that. We want to have people to carry on intelligent conversations with people of all walks of life. The problem is the execution of some of these subjects. Some teachers like to structure their classes around doing busy work that doesn't help anyone in the long run.
 
I guess i will give my opinion on this topic as well:
Personally, i do not like the current educational system, nor do i hate it; i'm rather neutral. Although, i do see reasons behind such a set up. Again, from my point of view, school serves as a ethical learning and most importantly, a place to discover his or her own interests. As many of you have pointed out motivation as one of the problems, i believe, that if you really wish to learn something, you don't necessarly need to learn that through school; North america s educational systems give student much more free time than china's for example, and that time can be used in a productive way, if the student sincerely wants to learn.

As it may sound confusing, i will give an example: i have just graduated from high school (well, grade 11, quebec system is wierd lol), and i have realized that i have not learned a lot from teachers, besides general themes like organisation, planification, individuals and society etc. I have maintain my good grades in order to not have any trouble with my strict parents or my school, and spent the rest of the time in a library. I may not have the best grade, but my average should not be above 2 point of difference of average with the nerdiest guy of the school. Although, he spent the rest of the time collecting those 2 points, while i learned new things.

Well, in brief, education is meant to discover our talents and interests, such is how i view the theme.
 
Everything you can learn in school has value. The important part is how you learn it and in what extent. If you want to take a Maths course and you also learn History, it isn't bad. What is bad is doing projects and in-depth analyses on History. Knowledge is always useful, but you must emphasize on your goals first and foremost.
 
Elite Stride said:
I know. What I'm pretty much saying here is that in high school, it is a lot more important to know your maths, sciences, and how to write/speak/read and develop and express your thoughts in a clear and logical manner than memorizing stupid and unimportant dates and other subjects that nobody is going to remember. Those subjects are the only things that I have actually applied years later.

You're right, it's what you plan to use your education for, that's why it would be much more effective to leave those more specialized areas of study for college when people decide to study them for their professions.

Another thing that high schools lack is actual, legitimate career education. There are countless professions that people can go into, but the only things that kids are ever taught are the mainstream careers like lawyers, doctors, firemen, police officers, and teachers. I came out of high school hopelessly unprepared to begin study for a specific career path because I wasn't interested in the mainstream. And I resent my school so much for that. Why was it more important to be doing trivial, useless stuff for so many years that I have now completely forgotten, when I could have been learning about the different things a person can do with their life?

Well most schools will say that it's important to receive a broad and liberal education, and to a degree I certainly agree with that. We want to have people to carry on intelligent conversations with people of all walks of life. The problem is the execution of some of these subjects. Some teachers like to structure their classes around doing busy work that doesn't help anyone in the long run.
Click to expand...

Even with the "liberal education" argument in mind, I still think the actual course load needs a bit of work. Math, science, social studies, and English are all undeniably useful disciplines, but certain courses taught in those fields at the high school level aren't really useful from either a liberal arts standpoint or a college preparatory standpoint (except to students that intend on majoring in those subjects). I think the high school curriculum should be more like this:

Math- Algebra, Geometry, and Trigonometry required for all students. Calculus is not required, but highly recommended depending on intended field of study.
Science- Biology and Physics required
Social Studies- 2 years of History, 1 year of Economics required
English- 1 or 2 years of literature, 2 years of writing required
Other- 4 years of physical education (school athletes are exempt from this), 1 year of arts and humanities

Beyond that, the student's schedule would be filled by electives decided by the students and their advisors depending on their intentions after high school.

And yes, I agree that school needs more of a career emphasis in general.

Zeto said:
Well, in brief, education is meant to discover our talents and interests, such is how i view the theme.
Click to expand...

IDK where you go to school, but no school I've gone to in America has ever accomplished this beyond a vague understanding of your talents and interests in each subject.
 
That's basically how the curriculum is, Bolt. Although, four years of PE is not a good idea. There are people who hate that class. PE is more of career-minded choice. Usually, athletes take that class because it's second nature to them.
 
Haunted Water said:
That's basically how the curriculum is, Bolt.
Click to expand...

It's close, but that's not what my high school did. My high school did this:


9th grade:
Foundations of Christianity (my high school was a Catholic school, just ignore the religion requirements)
Algebra I/Geometry (you can take a placement test to test out of Algebra I. You can even test out of even higher level courses, but most Freshmen don't go any further than Geometry)
Biology I/Honors Biology
World History
English I (predominantly a literature course on short stories and novels)/Honors English I (combines English I and English II)
a foreign language of your choice (options were Spanish, French, German, and Latin)
One semester of Health and one semester of PE

10th grade:
One semester of New Testament study and one semester of Moral development
Geometry/Algebra II
One semester of Biology and one semester of Chemistry/Chemistry (if you took Honors Biology)
One semester of World History and one semester of U.S. History/A.P. World History
English II (predominantly a literature course on poems and plays)/Honors English II (American Literature)
a second year of foreign languages
a fine arts course of your choice (you can be exempt from this if you're enrolled in at least 3 honors courses)
PE (you can be exempt from this if you're in at least 4 honors courses)

11th grade:
Principles of Catholic Social Teaching
Algebra II/Precalculus
Chemistry/Physics
U.S. History
English III (American Literature)/Honors English III (British Literature)
At least one elective of your choosing (You need to be enrolled in at least 6 courses each year)

12th grade:
One semester of Relationships and one semester of a religion course of your choosing
One semester of Economics and one semester of political science, or any full year AP social study course if you qualify
English IV (British Literature)/AP English (I don't remember what the exact course work for this is, but it's another literature class)/Honors World Literature (if you took Honors English III but don't qualify for or don't want to take AP English)
whatever amount of electives it takes to fulfill the 6 course requirement

Basically, the main differences are that Chemistry isn't required, and that English places more emphasis on writing.

Haunted Water said:
Although, four years of PE is not a good idea. There are people who hate that class. PE is more of career-minded choice. Usually, athletes take that class because it's second nature to them.
Click to expand...

I think the physical education is important in the sense that the merits of exercise and health need to be taught in the schools, that's why I say it should be all 4 years (although in retrospect, that's even a bit much, maybe 2 years like my high school did). But not as it is now. First of all, school athletes would receive credit for it through their sports teams, keeping the jocks out of general PE classes. And the actual course content would emphasize proper exercise instead of teaching you how to play sports that no one cares about (because if you did, you'd probably be on the team already). So it'd really be more of a hands on health course.
 
Well here in the UK, we have something called options. We can choose 3-4 lessons ourselves but the basics are required.

P.E~ Is required but I chose further as one of my options ( I love football ) ( Turned out to not be just football )
English Language ( Required )
English Literature ( Required if you are really good at English )
Maths ( Required )
Statistics ( Required if you were really good at maths )
Triple Science ( Required depending on how good you are at science )
Food Technology ( My Option )
Music Technology ( My Option )
Business Studies ( Required )
I.T ( required )
Religious Education ( required )
Citizenship ( required )
 
I have never thought that i would be interested in basketball, before we played it in school. I had therefore found a new interest.
To be clear, i m not supporting the educational system, i m just saying that there are good sides of it as well, and we should take advantage of what we are receiving.
 
TheTPCProductionz said:
Well here in the UK, we have something called options. We can choose 3-4 lessons ourselves but the basics are required.

P.E~ Is required but I chose further as one of my options ( I love football ) ( Turned out to not be just football )
English Language ( Required )
English Literature ( Required if you are really good at English )
Maths ( Required )
Statistics ( Required if you were really good at maths )
Triple Science ( Required depending on how good you are at science )
Food Technology ( My Option )
Music Technology ( My Option )
Business Studies ( Required )
I.T ( required )
Religious Education ( required )
Citizenship ( required )
Click to expand...
I do not mean this is a spammy post, but why is "Religious Education" required? I, myself, find this unacceptable. Of course, you should not be ignorant on the subject of religion (I am an atheist, but I know a great deal about religion), but it should not be required as any type of core class. Granted, this is the U.K., and I am not familiar with this. As I can see from the sources I researched, it only teaches Christian values. Is this correct? It claims to teach "religious literacy," but this is absurd. Religious literacy should be a literacy of ALL major religions, if you are even going to label it as that, not just Christianity. Is this something that should even be taught in public schools?

Forgive me if I sound aggressive; by all means, I am not making defamatory remarks towards Christianity. I am trying to logically resolve my query.
 
We are taught religion to some extent in our ELA classes. Mostly when studying plays and whatnot.
Then again, in the UK, they don't have seperation of church and state, so there's probably a reason why there is only one religion taught.
 
Haunted Water said:
We are taught religion to some extent in our ELA classes. Mostly when studying plays and whatnot.
Then again, in the UK, they don't have seperation of church and state, so there's probably a reason why there is only one religion taught.
Click to expand...

Well, that is perfectly acceptable in a literature class because you are not being taught about the religion from a religious perspective; you are analyzing it from a logical perspective.

Really? Well, that answers my main question, and I am therefore no longer THAT ignorant on the subject. Thank you for responding. :)
 
Also, religious schools usually teach about their religion in those schools, even in the US. I spent my last 2 years of high school at an all-girls Catholic school and, surprise, I had a mandatory class about Catholicism, taught by a nun. We had some non-Christians in the school (1 Muslim girl and 1 Hindu girl) and they both had to take the class as well. There were probably a few atheists like myself, but it wasn't something that was talked about. But, it's a private school not public, so there you go; if you object to the courses, you don't have to go to the school.
 
We are taught about, numerous religions. Christianity is the religion that is pushed though, a lot of students that are Muslims leave the class when we talk about Christianity. It's rather stupid, to have it required. There is no qualification from it, but we are required in the UK to learn. The amount of religious people are low. 1 out of 30 people in our class and 10 out of 120 in our year, actually was religious. I am an atheist myself, but it was just a chance to muck about and finish coursework from other lessons for me and my mates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top