- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
Do you think high school should be optional or mandatory?
Mandatory. Otherwise we can go back to the days of 10 year olds running the equivalent of spinning machines.
There is so much to learn today that school does not teach, I can understand the reason for this question.
A good school will teach you how to think, not what to think.
A good school will give you something to think about.
My personal opinion is that school doesn't teach enough life skills these days. I don't remember the last time I saw anyone forced to take a home ec or a shop class. But we have so many things that kids need to learn and evidently not everyone's parents teach them:
How to dress for a job interview
A little respect
Budgeting 101
How to cross the street (Hint: It is not striding in front of me, weaving and bopping and daring me to hit you.)
Some internet usage experience
Some basic spelling and punctuation and not IM speak.
Okay, I now realize I am being curmudgeonly. So I'll let others chime in.
Do you think high school should be optional or mandatory?
[size=-2]Of course, my husband the physicist by education would respond that mathematics can be understood by any intelligent person, whereas you brain has to be special to understand physics beyond a certain level..)[/size]
Well, I've been watching the phenomenon in Boston called "Russian School of Mathematics" (http://www.russianschool.com/ - you may find their "about" statement interesting, as well as their "problem of the week") - I sometimes help them out with some of their extra-extra-curricular activities. They are essentially an after school/ weekend program that gives math instruction to kids; classes are in English, and there has been an increasing number of non-Russian students there - first the Chinese, then the Indians, and now Americans as well (I think it's about 50/50 now). Kids from RSM breeze through SATs (well, that's not hard to do!) and generally do well with APs and other classes. What I find interesting (which they won't advertise, of course) is that their program really isn't all that necessary for the really talented kids who grasp the concepts quickly and whose problem in math classes is one of boredom. However, they do absolute miracles for kids who've always been labeled "bad in math" - my masseuse's son, for example, a very mediocre student who was failing even the Curriculum 2 math ended up breezing through his SATs (he didn't get to calculus, but he quite well with pre-calc, I believe). In talking to the teachers, you discover quickly that their "trick" is in really explaining things step by step by step. They believe that the grade school math in this country tends to go too slowly; then, once curriculum jumps to algebra, it becomes a "sink or swim", and many kids sink because they were never really taught to think (OK, so I couldn't resist the pun - sorry). They, however, do things more gradually, so the student doesn't really meet those insurmountable obstacles. Really makes you wonder what could be done for the general student popualtion with a different approach!Yes, that is absolutely true. That is why we should not be afraid to emphasize mathmatics more in the grade school and high school curricula.
Vocational considerations aside, I think it is better to be a well educated person than to be an ignorant dummy.
It is better to know something about history than not to know anything about history.
It is better to know something about biology and literature and economics than not to know anything about any of these subjects.
As for mathematics...
Mathematics is the jewel in the crown of human intellectual achievement. It provides a model and template for all rational thought. Its clarity, precission, and standard of proof are the envy of all other acedemic disciplines.
That's what I think.
They believe that the grade school math in this country tends to go too slowly; then, once curriculum jumps to algebra, it becomes a "sink or swim", and many kids sink because they were never really taught to think
First of all, let me just say that it's highly ironic for me (a left-leaning centrist) to be arguing this point with you. Here is goes anyway.The liberal argument goes that vocational schools breed inequality because their graduates are less likely to go on to college and end up with a good job. However, what in fact happens is that kids who do not want to be there do not go on to college anyway, and end up with no job at all. Vocational training allows one to get a decent job, even if the good job may stay out of reach without the college degree. Nor should college ever be out of question - a vocational school graduate with a diploma of a nursing assistant may get inspired enough to get into a full nursing program down the line.I do not agree to cut down high school education and have vocational school replace the regular high school. The only reason that a high school diploma is "useless" is not because the school didn't teach what the students should learn, it's because the education is not high enough.
First of all, let me just say that it's highly ironic for me (a left-leaning centrist) to be arguing this point with you. Here is goes anyway.The liberal argument goes that vocational schools breed inequality because their graduates are less likely to go on to college and end up with a good job. However, what in fact happens is that kids who do not want to be there do not go on to college anyway, and end up with no job at all. Vocational training allows one to get a decent job, even if the good job may stay out of reach without the college degree. Nor should college ever be out of question - a vocational school graduate with a diploma of a nursing assistant may get inspired enough to get into a full nursing program down the line..
The way to ensure that more kids do well in HS and go on to college is by fighting poverty; it's by programs such as Head Start that do a great job but that are unfortunately way too short (kids from Head Start have significantly higher IQ than their peers from the same socioeconomic group at kindergarten, yet the difference disappears by high school - wouldn't it make more sense to continue investing in those kids past pre-school and make sure the original investment doesn't just go to waste?)
There have been numerous studies suggesting reasons why the poor do less well academically; the latest one (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/27/0811910106.abstract) is truly fascinating, suggesting that stress which disproportionately affects the poor even at a young age, cause people to have worse working memory - working memory, of course, is necessary to commit explicit information to memory. Another study pointed out that kindergartners from the less educated classes often don't know how to focus their eyes on the page because they have never been read to. All this suggests that teachers at advantaged schools should be more attuned to the unique challenges of their students; with enough resources put in intelligently it is possible to narrow this achievement gap significantly.
What I do not believe is that it is worth the trouble to keep a 16-y-o who refuses to learn in school.
I don't know about Head Start. We have a program called TAG (Talented and Gifted) that starts from grade one all the way to grade twelve. The content of the program and the way it runs are debatable but they gave the opportunity to the high IQ students, who find the regular class too easy, to challenge themselve and learn earlier and learn faster.
But I have to say that no matter the income level, the families who emphasis the importance of learning and who created good learning environment, their kids tend to study better than the families who don't.
How and what does a 16 year old know?!