School, Why do we go to school?

[Galadria]

Too true, Cloudy. Jabidas, in the USA, most of the real teaching is at University level, whichis why we have so many, and why so many foreign students come to them. Public schools here are at the mercy of local school boards, and they see to it that lowest-common-denominator education is all that is administered, because they fear the term "elitism." Of course, Universities are all about unabashed elitism, except where grade inflation is the norm, like Harvard. I can tell you, I was shocked when I started college level courses, I actually had to study. But, I feel that my alma mater did well by me, so I got into medical school. Now, that is hard work.

[Sir Michael]

Cloudy - we apparently know different lawyers. The ones I know make 6 figures. I even know paralegals that make 60K plus. Imagine how much their bosses make.

You're right, though. I'm becoming a teacher knowing full well that I "am taking a vow of poverty" as they say. I've realized that at this point in my life, having a stable career I can count on and a job I like are much more important than money.

Jabidas - education in America doesn't suck. It's been shown that when you compare reading, writing, math and science scores of American students with those of other countries we are all about equivalent. Besides, we are the leading industrial and economic power in the world, and everyone wants to come here. Why? Because this is the land of opportunity. People know that based on their own initiative and work ethic they can achieve anything they want.

High school is a good preparation for college, but perhaps we don't have to cram as much into it as other countries do. Why? Because in the US anyone can go to college. In most other countries it is only a select few, the best of the best.

One more thing...what is "maths"? Is that a non-US thing? Here, we just say "math". As in, "I am studying math." You could also say "I am studying mathematics," though.

[Kaz]

Sir Michael - "maths" is the British English (and maybe Australian or another type as well, I dunno) word for "math", which is American English. Not that big a difference though .
My view on the "does American school suck?" I went to a public American school until 6th grade (moved to Germany after 5th grade) and YES it sucked. What we learned was incredibly simple. I used to try to teach myself division of fractions and the like in 4th grade math class because what we were doing was so EASY, and we REPEATED it and REPEATED it... it was a time where my average was 100% correct on every test and I never paid attention in school. Still scares me to think of it.
I know the German three-branch school system gets a lot of criticism, elitism and all that (after 6th grade - 4th grade in some states - the kids go to three different types of high school for their varying degrees of intellect), but I like it. It ensures that EVERYONE can learn at their own pace, or near enough, rather than "the smart kids are bored to death and the not as smart have a real struggle to keep up" I had at US schools (although there the latter wasn't as obvious, and not as smart kids will always have a hard time at school ).

[Aelia Jusa]

Yes math=maths=mathematics. No big mystery

I have mixed feelings about issues like elite schools vs schools for all abilites and such. I'm coming from an Australian school perspective so I can't comment on American schools, but the school I went to was a public (state) school for all abilities. For maths and english in the first three years they had different streams, hard, medium and easy (insert PC names ). I think that was a useful thing to do, because if you have all ranges of abilities in one classroom, you end up having some kids not keeping up, and some getting terribly bored. With segregated classes the extremes in the classroom are not so extreme, with the difference between the least able medium kid and the most able medium kid being quite reasonable. Because as will always happen, teachers end up teaching to the average - you can't, as is suggested by experts in effective teaching, teach to the least able in the class and keep repeating things until every one has got it, because that's not fair to kids who have greater abilities, and at the same time you can't go as fast as the smartest kids want to go as it's not fair to everyone else. So I think separating students abilities-wise for core subjects is helpful. But then for other things, like history, I don't think it's really necessary to separate people.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Not all lawyers make a decent living, I must stress that point! I know so many kids who say right off they want to be a doctor or a lawyer for the money. Well, don't put yourself through the torture of THAT schooling and interning if you don't REALLY want to do the job out of plain interest or desire to do something good/constructive/altruistic with your life! I know lawyers who struggle to make their rent payments but love their work and get great satisfaction from helping people (one I know is a lawyer for immigration cases and international law) and there are doctors out there who don't make a whopping huge check but are satisfied with the good they can do for their fellow man.. so, my point? Don't go to school JUST to get a high paying job... you may find you don't like it. But on the other hand, you might find one that is richly rewarding in other ways... it's all about your personal goals and satisfaction in the end. CB

Oh don't worry, for some strange reason I want to be a lawyer, though of course i'm still young, it's not certain at this stage, because their are many jobs I would like.
BK, I'm not quite at that stage, it's more a future ambition at the moment.

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: Yes math=maths=mathematics. No big mystery I have mixed feelings about issues like elite schools vs schools for all abilites and such. I'm coming from an Australian school perspective so I can't comment on American schools, but the school I went to was a public (state) school for all abilities. For maths and english in the first three years they had different streams, hard, medium and easy (insert PC names ). I think that was a useful thing to do, because if you have all ranges of abilities in one classroom, you end up having some kids not keeping up, and some getting terribly bored. With segregated classes the extremes in the classroom are not so extreme, with the difference between the least able medium kid and the most able medium kid being quite reasonable. Because as will always happen, teachers end up teaching to the average - you can't, as is suggested by experts in effective teaching, teach to the least able in the class and keep repeating things until every one has got it, because that's not fair to kids who have greater abilities, and at the same time you can't go as fast as the smartest kids want to go as it's not fair to everyone else. So I think separating students abilities-wise for core subjects is helpful. But then for other things, like history, I don't think it's really necessary to separate people.

Yes I have to agree, I like the idea of seperate levels in the classes, however the lawyers and unions here in the states have made it impossible to do that, what we have instead is a system that has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator so that no one's feelings are hurt and everyone gets good grades...or at least does not have to worry about being advanced to the next grade..its all but automatic now *sigh* Only in private schools can you hope for a decent education, or so it seems to me as a parent.

EDIT: I was down on the lawyers and unions here...but it is also due to over protective parents who can't accept that little johnny might not be the little einstein they think he is too.

[ 04-01-2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Kaz]

One of the moral downsides of this school system is that it separates the kids quite noticeably. For instance, at my school we have a *lot* of children of scientists, researchers, doctors, lawyers and the like, whereas the children of mechanics, etc. will generally go to one of the other schools. I have no idea why this is, maybe it's because people with jobs like these consider a good education more important than others, and I have seen kids here who shouldn't've gone to this school and kids at other schools who should have, mainly because of what their parents wanted *I won't even THINK of starting an "is intelligence genetically based" discussion :uhoh:*. However, it still separates the kids and that's not a very good thing.

Originally posted by Kaz: One of the moral downsides of this school system is that it separates the kids quite noticeably. For instance, at my school we have a *lot* of children of scientists, researchers, doctors, lawyers and the like, whereas the children of mechanics, etc. will generally go to one of the other schools. I have no idea why this is, maybe it's because people with jobs like these consider a good education more important than others, and I have seen kids here who shouldn't've gone to this school and kids at other schools who should have, mainly because of what their parents wanted *I won't even THINK of starting an "is intelligence genetically based" discussion :uhoh:*. However, it still separates the kids and that's not a very good thing.

I don't think its genetics [img]smile.gif[/img] I have seen the kids of some very very intelligent people do some incredibly dumb things....or maybe thats where wisdom comes in...hehe hard to tell

[Sir Michael]

Schools still place kids in tracks (separation by ability level), but its not quite so obvious anymore. Instead of remedial science, science, and advanced science, students are put into science, honors science, and AP science. Same thing. Plus they have magnet schools, where brighter kids can go and focus on one area, although here, they have just been used as a magnet to get white kids into the ethnic neighborhood schools.

In a recent classroom observation I did of an 8th grade physical sciences class, the teacher had two "developmental" (low) classes and two regular classes. In her words, "the content is the same, just the method of delivery is different," and that was true. She just was more careful with the lower kids to more carefully explain things, give them more concrete examples, and to make sure they took good notes.

In our teacher ed classes we are taught to teach to the highest level in the class. Sure, some kids may fall behind, but they can be helped by the faster students, and anyways, the lower kids will end up achieving more than if you lowered your expectations anyway.

People tend to act, behave, and learn how you expect them to. It has been all too true in this country that teachers get a low impression of a class, and they treat them that way, and guess what, the students live up to those lowered expectations.

Originally posted by Sir Michael: Schools still place kids in tracks (separation by ability level), but its not quite so obvious anymore. Instead of remedial science, science, and advanced science, students are put into science, honors science, and AP science. Same thing. Plus they have magnet schools, where brighter kids can go and focus on one area, although here, they have just been used as a magnet to get white kids into the ethnic neighborhood schools. In a recent classroom observation I did of an 8th grade physical sciences class, the teacher had two "developmental" (low) classes and two regular classes. In her words, "the content is the same, just the method of delivery is different," and that was true. She just was more careful with the lower kids to more carefully explain things, give them more concrete examples, and to make sure they took good notes. In our teacher ed classes we are taught to teach to the highest level in the class. Sure, some kids may fall behind, but they can be helped by the faster students, and anyways, the lower kids will end up achieving more than if you lowered your expectations anyway. People tend to act, behave, and learn how you expect them to. It has been all too true in this country that teachers get a low impression of a class, and they treat them that way, and guess what, the students live up to those lowered expectations.

Hey Sir Michael, You know, I admire teachers ( God knows Id have to kill some of the kids that I see in schools now) but if you all really want to start getting paid, you need to get rid of the unions and push for standards testing, get rid of the dead wood teachers and make performance and results a criterion in your reviews for salary increases...make it more like the tech sector [img]smile.gif[/img]

The good teachers would soar in that environment..unfortunately there are too many teachers who may not fit that description...anyway that was off topic..back on topic I notice that even though you have the same three level split, it just had the names politicly corected. Of course who wants to have "Science for Dummies", "Science for Normal People" and "Science for super geeks" so I guess the political correctness might be beneficial [img]smile.gif[/img]