Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Sazerac · 03-27-2002, 02:11 PM

Fascinating thread. I agree with pretty much everything that has been said about no subject being a "waste", although there are some subjects in college that I REALLY had to wonder about. (Do we really need 4 years of H&PE credits, other than to support the already over-inflated athletics department? There's one reason why I advocate getting a degree through a technical institute such as DeVry, where they train you in what you NEED rather than a lot of B.S.)

However, this line that Nanaki3 posted caught my eye:

You can easily squeeze 12 years of knowledge into 6-9 years.

Maybe 6 years is a bit too little, but nine years, I'd agree with. What's covered in twelve years could easily be covered in nine with one simple adjustment: get rid of the farcical three-month break between May and August.

We no longer live in an agrarian economy where farm lads had to be yanked out of school for three to four months of the year to help Pappy out on the family farm. Yet, the school calendar has not changed materially since the early 19th century. Much of what was learned in the previous year is forgotten over the huge summer break, and the school curricula is set up to review the prior year's material for a full 1/3 of the new session.

Most of us now live in a technological urban-based society, and even rural communities are following this pattern. There is no reason why school districts could not change their calendars to allow for 7 six-week sessions with a week off in between each one, an extra week off in the summer, and two weeks off during the Christmas holiday season. Less time would be spent reviewing and more time focusing on developing new skills and learning new concepts.

This technique is not an alien one. It has already been applied successfully in several urban areas (certain areas in Dallas, for example). It has also been shown that both G.P.A. and achievement test scores have been significantly higher for schools that follow the modified system rather than the classical "three-month-summer-break" system

The real reason I think a lot of school districts won't go to this system: it would remove nine full months of state supported child care for Mommy and Daddy who are working 50-hour-week full jobs. When the three-month break comes, whisk the kids off to camp. Meanwhile, the overall quality of education suffers, and students feel held back and frustrated by what amounts to endless review, review, review, rather than more concentrated effort toward learning new concepts.

03-27-2002, 02:11 PM	#37
Sazerac Ironworks Moderator Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Monroe, LA Age: 61 Posts: 7,387	Fascinating thread. I agree with pretty much everything that has been said about no subject being a "waste", although there are some subjects in college that I REALLY had to wonder about. (Do we really need 4 years of H&PE credits, other than to support the already over-inflated athletics department? There's one reason why I advocate getting a degree through a technical institute such as DeVry, where they train you in what you NEED rather than a lot of B.S.) However, this line that Nanaki3 posted caught my eye: You can easily squeeze 12 years of knowledge into 6-9 years. Maybe 6 years is a bit too little, but nine years, I'd agree with. What's covered in twelve years could easily be covered in nine with one simple adjustment: get rid of the farcical three-month break between May and August. We no longer live in an agrarian economy where farm lads had to be yanked out of school for three to four months of the year to help Pappy out on the family farm. Yet, the school calendar has not changed materially since the early 19th century. Much of what was learned in the previous year is forgotten over the huge summer break, and the school curricula is set up to review the prior year's material for a full 1/3 of the new session. Most of us now live in a technological urban-based society, and even rural communities are following this pattern. There is no reason why school districts could not change their calendars to allow for 7 six-week sessions with a week off in between each one, an extra week off in the summer, and two weeks off during the Christmas holiday season. Less time would be spent reviewing and more time focusing on developing new skills and learning new concepts. This technique is not an alien one. It has already been applied successfully in several urban areas (certain areas in Dallas, for example). It has also been shown that both G.P.A. and achievement test scores have been significantly higher for schools that follow the modified system rather than the classical "three-month-summer-break" system The real reason I think a lot of school districts won't go to this system: it would remove nine full months of state supported child care for Mommy and Daddy who are working 50-hour-week full jobs. When the three-month break comes, whisk the kids off to camp. Meanwhile, the overall quality of education suffers, and students feel held back and frustrated by what amounts to endless review, review, review, rather than more concentrated effort toward learning new concepts. __________________ "And all my days are trances, and all my nightly dreams, Are where thy grey eye glances, and where thy footstep gleams, In what ethereal dances, by what eternal streams..."