education in USA

[Nas]

i believe education in USA is going down, i once saw in a newspaper that said like %56 students passed the state exams in a school of NY, if this is right than more of the mass public are less smart, meaning they probably dont even have a clue at what Marx was all about.

i really dont listen to my teacher that much , i rather read the textbooks , i dont blame it on the teachers, but who is there to blame????

[Misodoctakleidist]

30% of americans think rabbits lay eggs, I think that says it all.

[bluerev002]

Of course, were approaching the years of Farenheith 451. School is getting so damn easy its not even funny. But the thing is, kids these days would rather go out in the streets and blow stuff up just because its fun. They would rather go party drink beer and act stupid.

Of course it could be that, or the school systems arent really very strict. Atleast mine isnt.

[FatFreeMilk]

if this is right than more of the mass public are less smart,
That doesn't make them less smart, it just shows that school aint their thing. A good friend of mine is GATE designated but couldn't care less about school, let alone standardized tests.

The standards are going up in my area. My class (06) is the first one to have to pass the California HS exit exam (If you want to graduate, you have to pass this test). I passed it on the first try but lots of other people didn't. While we were taking this thing in the gym (yeah, they had all the sophmores in the gym to take a test thinking they could stop us from cheating, HA!) lots of people just didn't take it seriously. Some were to busy flirting with guys across the room, others were sleeping, some were making little designs on the scantron, pretty much lots of people just blew it off.

It would be convenient to point the finger at somebody at blame them for our education problems but it isn't that simple.

[elijahcraig]

30% of americans think rabbits lay eggs, I think that says it all.

Where did you get this from?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:03 PM
30% of americans think rabbits lay eggs, I think that says it all.
there are 3 kinds of lies:

lies

damned lies

statistics

[cormacobear]

The reason there is a rise in California exam scores is because they just lowered standards again, which when you look is what took place before every signifigant increase in scores for U.S. standardized testing.

Great solution ask them easier questions rather than teach them more answers.

The U.S. education is sadly the butt of a great deal of jokes in other countries.

[Guerrilla22]

Education in America is on the decline. It's because our public schools are losing funding left and right, even major Universitites. The governmnet is willing to put 450 billion into defense a year, and another 200+ billion into a war in Iraq, but isn't willing to ensure that all schools are up to par. No child left behind is an absolute joke!

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 12:21 AM
The reason there is a rise in California exam scores is because they just lowered standards again, which when you look is what took place before every signifigant increase in scores for U.S. standardized testing.

Great solution ask them easier questions rather than teach them more answers.

The U.S. education is sadly the butt of a great deal of jokes in other countries.
Exactly.

[Archpremier]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:03 PM
30% of americans think rabbits lay eggs.
And 29.666239078159% of Americans like to fuck with surveys.

[Stapler]

They don't lay eggs?

[life beyond life]

as parents, we can't depend on the public schools to "educate" our children, that is primarily up to us. i would have been a very lost youth, if it weren't for my mother's passion of reading and my father's passion of history, anthropology, and politics. without their consciousness, the highest tests scores wouldn't have provided me with the knowledge they gave me. so now, as a parent myself, i realize the value of the parental supervision of their children's education.

i put my faith into freedom schools, like what the Black Panther party had established, and charter schools with more of a montessori emphasis. these just seem more practical in their cultural development and intellectual development. freedom schools also tend to lean more toward common sense training than just textbook training.

lastly, teachers are so underpaid in this society (and most others) that i think they lack the motivation to really perform as they naturally and intentionally would. in that way, money is an incentive for teachers. we live in a society that pays prison guards more than teachers...damn shame, ain't it? :angry:

[DaCuBaN]

we live in a society that pays prison guards more than teachers

Quite a few of my friends have gone on to teach in the UK from university... most notable are two: One in Primary education (5-11yr olds, general curriculum) and another secondary history teacher (11-16,17,18 subject based). Neither are well paid, and neither could care less: They simply want to spread their knowledge, to try and help as many people as possible

I do think it's abhorrent that teachers are so badly paid as they are undoubtably some of the most important figures in society, but I can see no other way than having 'state run' schools. Private schools have always instilled an 'eliteist' attitude in those who've attended them in my experience.

[life beyond life]

Cuban, i beg to differ.

freedom schools, established by revolutionary people do not instill a elitist mentality. we have an independent school and it isn't nearly based on our students developing a superiority complex of any sort. we have a cirriculum based on the core subjects, but we also focus in on cultural studies and second languages. we're working toward musicial programs. we're totally non profit, so we call the shots. perhaps, you are referring to white suburbia, because you won't find freedom schools of that kind of around these parts. just look into the history of the Black Panther freedom schools, ours isn't far off.

while i can agree that private schools of upper middle class amerikkka (oops did i type KKK?) may cultivate a superiority complex in their students, freedom schools in the inner city, working class neighborhoods do not promote or encourage the elitist mentality. if anything, public schools have subconsicously taught our children to have inferiority complexes where i'm from.

and yes, about the teacher's salary and all, we all acknowledge that teachers are practically volunteers for all intents and purposes, however, it doesn't boost their professional self esteem if they aren't acknowledged by the board and general public. point blank-we need to show teachers a lot more reverence than they are currently shown.

peace.

[DaCuBaN]

There is nothing in that post for me to disagree with - the only point I'd like to highlight is that my experience is solely in the UK. I have a nephew living in the states (oregon) and my sister is quite worried about how good his education will be (UK education is what you make of it, but in most cases it does a good job of remaining impartial in areas such as politics, history, religion and culture)

Any advice you may have (you seem to intimate your attached to said 'freedom schools') would be appreciated, as the results of US govt schools seems to be in the majority poor, especially if you're not a 'real' american.

[fuerzasocialista]

I can only speak from experience here; I would have to say that the quality education in the U$ is on a decline because of the degradation of the over-all system. "Education Reform" is something that is almost never mentioned by the U$ government because of the increased spending into the military. Right now they don't give a flying fuck if kids that are graduating can barely read or if urban kids are packed into janitors' closets like sardines cause the gym is filled with 3 other classes and PE isn't one of them.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Bloody Yanks. :P

I agree with most of what has been said, but a few points to consider...

In any Western Capitalist country, what IS the motivation for educating the populace? A wide ranging and unbiased curriculum would surely lead to more people developing the kind of thoughts we see at 'Che-Lives'! I swear, most of the teachers at my old (Grammar) school were lefties - and it's the same at university. Only by restricting "the best" education to the rich (the elitist schools that have been mentioned) can those holding power be assured of keeping it!

Another thing... I'm not sure what teachers salaries are like in America, but in the U.K. - they're not so bad. I have enormous respect for teachers; my Mum is head of modern languages at the Girls Grammar School nearby and I know a few of her colleagues. As has been suggested, (by 'The Cuban') most are in teaching for the pleasure of sharing knowledge - this is only truly effective if the environment is conductive to study. It's no good having the greatest History teacher in the World if he (or she) has no sources to refer to!

Finally - I've referred to them a couple of times, but what do people think of the Grammar School? By this I mean selective schools; based solely on intellectual ability. Where I live, every primary school in the area tutors children for the 11+ exam... If you so wish, you can sit the exam... And then the top 120 or so students are awarded a place at the school. There are no fees involved or anything; entry only discriminates against "distance from school"... (Those more than 30 miles away have to get a slightly higher mark, I think, to enter.)

In the Grammar school, the quality of the teaching is superb. In my opinion, it offers those with a higher "potential" (in academic areas) the chance to reach that potential - so I see nothing wrong with it. Anyone disagree?

[DaCuBaN]

I just love the way everyone is either too vain or too lazy to write DaCuBaN :lol:

I've had dacub, The Cuban, Mr Cuban.... it's really quite amusing ;)


there are 3 kinds of lies:

lies

damned lies

statistics


Who the hell was it said that..... I remember hearing the quote once, but I'm damned if I can remember...


n the Grammar school, the quality of the teaching is superb. In my opinion, it offers those with a higher "potential" (in academic areas) the chance to reach that potential

Much as I can see the sense, it has negative effects as well. By removing the intelligent pupils from the mainstream schools, you may improve their (the minority) education, but many will suffer. I'm sure other people will identify with spending countless hours with acquiantances at school, helping with things that to them were not a problem, but others really struggled on.

I don't see anything wrong with it as such, but I feel we could do far more if we didn't promote such a division. A good friend of mine seriously struggled through his earlier years of education, and up until he was 13 was basically considered a write off. In the end, thanks to patience from many of his friends and a few good teachers, he left school with 4 highers. For someone who never achieved above level C in the 5-14 curriculum, that's pretty impressive!

I feel that had some of the people concerned with helping him gone to grammar school (which many could have done had they had the inclination) his education would have suffered.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 19 2004, 05:32 PM
Bloody Yanks. :P

I agree with most of what has been said, but a few points to consider...

In any Western Capitalist country, what IS the motivation for educating the populace? A wide ranging and unbiased curriculum would surely lead to more people developing the kind of thoughts we see at 'Che-Lives'! I swear, most of the teachers at my old (Grammar) school were lefties - and it's the same at university. Only by restricting "the best" education to the rich (the elitist schools that have been mentioned) can those holding power be assured of keeping it!

Another thing... I'm not sure what teachers salaries are like in America, but in the U.K. - they're not so bad. I have enormous respect for teachers; my Mum is head of modern languages at the Girls Grammar School nearby and I know a few of her colleagues. As has been suggested, (by 'The Cuban') most are in teaching for the pleasure of sharing knowledge - this is only truly effective if the environment is conductive to study. It's no good having the greatest History teacher in the World if he (or she) has no sources to refer to!

Finally - I've referred to them a couple of times, but what do people think of the Grammar School? By this I mean selective schools; based solely on intellectual ability. Where I live, every primary school in the area tutors children for the 11+ exam... If you so wish, you can sit the exam... And then the top 120 or so students are awarded a place at the school. There are no fees involved or anything; entry only discriminates against "distance from school"... (Those more than 30 miles away have to get a slightly higher mark, I think, to enter.)

In the Grammar school, the quality of the teaching is superb. In my opinion, it offers those with a higher "potential" (in academic areas) the chance to reach that potential - so I see nothing wrong with it. Anyone disagree?
I think you are definitely right here, I definitely agree with this system of education that they have in Europe, however if you try to make this argument people say "but then everyone wouldn't have equal right to education."

[The Children of the Revolution]

I just love the way everyone is either too vain or too lazy to write DaCuBaN.

I've had dacub, The Cuban, Mr Cuban.... it's really quite amusing.


It's a stupid name, comrade, for one so intelligent as yourself! :P At least people don't abbreviate your name! "TCotR"... :( I tell you what, I'll call you 'DaCuBaN' if you like; you reciprocate by writing out 'The Children of the Revolution' every time you post OR want to slap me, ok? :lol:



Much as I can see the sense, it has negative effects as well. By removing the intelligent pupils from the mainstream schools, you may improve their (the minority) education, but many will suffer. I'm sure other people will identify with spending countless hours with acquiantances at school, helping with things that to them were not a problem, but others really struggled on.


Ok, fair point. But if I'm at a Grammar school... I can help my comrades there (as I did) and we can reach an even higher "intellectual" level. If I'm stuck at a comprehensive... I can help people, sure, and I would. But, and I say this with no arrogance, I AM on a different level - I had trouble explaining things to friends at the Grammar School sometimes. :rolleyes:

I guess the question is, would it be better to have a well educated populace... Or a slightly-less-well-educated populace with an "intellectual elite" somewhere near the top? (I realise that this sounds a little horrid!)

[KickMcCann]

One thing about the American school systems is the way college is treated. In most European countries, and even Cuba from what I here, college education is free and constitutionally gauranteed. Depending on how long you go (2-4 years) and where you go (public or private) young people who graduate from college in America are usually $45,000 to $150,000 dollars in debt when they recieve their diplomas. Unless they are rich, it basically gaurantees that they must find a company somewhere, get a job, and pay off their debts; it really smacks of forced labor to me. This fact forces many young adults to skip college altogether, or joing the military to pay it off, and you all know what the US military does....

Which leads me to ask; if America is "the greatest country in the world" as well as the richest country in the world, then why cannot American afford universal education when much poorer countries can?

And secondary, or high school as its called is an even bigger joke. Although they are supposed to be public, in most cases big corporations like Mcdonalds or Coca-Cola have big stakes and investments in schools, turning them from education centers to advertisement centers.

When the day comes when I have children, I hope I can raise them outside of the US, so they can recieve better education, and a better sense of morality and society.

[redstar2000]

The statement about "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is attributed to Mark Twain.

I would like very much to climb out on a limb here and dispute the basic proposition of this thread; I suspect that people actually know more about the real world than they ever have before.

The problem is that old bugaboo...evidence.

Our "test culture" is more than a half-century old...and we've simply forgotten that there's any other way to measure knowledge.

So if some kid thinks that Washington was a city-planner or Lincoln was the guy that built that town in Nebraska...well, he's a dummy and shouldn't be allowed to go out in public without a keeper.

We measure knowledge by the accumulation of trivia...and how quickly and accurately you can regurgitate it in a time-pressure situation.

As others have noted, it's generally only the elite private schools that actually try to teach our young and future rulers how to think critically. The willingness to memorize arbitrary sets of unrelated "facts" and carry out instructions without question is "sufficient" for everyone else. "Yours is not to reason why, etc."

So an ordinary kid who actually wants to figure things out must do so on his/her own...and will likely receive little encouragement from the adult figures in their life.

Can people do that? Can people pick up enough clues from the media, pop culture, the internet, etc. to become critical thinkers? Especially critical thinkers about the social order in which they live?

The evidence thus far has been disappointingly meager; it "looks like" most people have brains stuffed with so much crap that they're fortunate to be able to find their way home after work.

One small "straw in the wind" which I find very encouraging. Inspite of being indoctrinated with the idea that history -- both "good" and "bad" -- is determined by "great leaders", they don't seem to buy it. These days, the more some personality is hyped as a "great leader", the stronger the assumption that there is something really rotten about the guy that awaits inevitable public exposure.

The wide-spread popularity of "conspiracy theories" testifies to this belief; e.g., "George W. Bush was really the mastermind behind 9/11", etc.

This is a very crude form of critical thinking...but a sound intellectual defense against the conceits of authority. Whatever authority tells us, it's probably both a lie and an effort to obscure their own culpability.

In the absence of any significant communist movement, the working class perforce "gropes in the dark" as best it can.

Sometimes it finds things.

By the incoherent movement to set up alternative schools of all kinds, the working class indicates its preference for knowledge over ignorance for its kids.

More things will be found.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[monkeydust]

The statement about "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is attributed to Mark Twain.


I'd always heard that it originated from Disraeli, though I'm probably wrong on that, it doesn't sound particularly "Disraeli-esque".

EDIT: Not that I'm a pedantic bastard, but I checked up on that quote. It seems we're both right, in a sense:

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."


- Autobiography of Mark Twain


We measure knowledge by the accumulation of trivia...and how quickly and accurately you can regurgitate it in a time-pressure situation.


I couldn't agree more, though certain examinations do involve critical thinking as well as simple fact regurgitation, such trivia you speak of is by far the easiest aspect of education to assess en mass, thus it tends to form the bulk of any course with a final examination.

Personally, my issues with current education in a capitalist society are more far reaching than this alone. I feel that education is very often seen as a "means to an end", rather than an "end in itself". In some ways, the current British debate over university education is a lens through which the entire issue can be viewed.

Many advocate loans for students, on the basis that they'll pay off the loans afterwards. The fact that money is not paid "up front", supposedly means that the policy does not discriminate on a class basis.

Though for the above to hold true, it must be assumed that one will earn significantly more after completing a university course than they would have otherwise. In other words, it assumes that one will get a "good job", after finishing a university education.

As you know, a "good job", in this sense, is merely one with a high salary. In making the assumption that university students will get such a job, the advocates of tuition fees acknowledge (or perhaps encourage) the idea that the goal of education should be to eventually earn more money.

I take issue with this. I feel that education should not necessarily be a "stepping stone" to success. Moreover, I feel that the fact that it is so encourages many to see education as a "necessary evil", in the eventual pursuit of greater riches. This, I feel, results in a lack of interest for subjects studied and ultimately, a lack of development in such intellectual disciplines.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Which leads me to ask; if America is "the greatest country in the world" as well as the richest country in the world, then why cannot American afford universal education when much poorer countries can?


Huh?!? University education is... Free?!? Where do I sign?

There was recently a huge debate in this country (the UK) over the issue of top-up fees. Us students already have to pay for our education; (admittedly, it IS subsidised...) now we'll have to pay more.

Education ought to be free.



And secondary, or high school as its called is an even bigger joke. Although they are supposed to be public, in most cases big corporations like Mcdonalds or Coca-Cola have big stakes and investments in schools, turning them from education centers to advertisement centers.


This I heard about, yes. Disgraceful. Apparantly, there's a company that sponsors a school in America - in exchange, the children have to watch TV (advertisements!) for an hour a day or something. The world has gone mad.

RedStar...

Interesting hypothesis...



We measure knowledge by the accumulation of trivia...and how quickly and accurately you can regurgitate it in a time-pressure situation ... The willingness to memorize arbitrary sets of unrelated "facts" and carry out instructions without question is "sufficient" for everyone else. "Yours is not to reason why, etc."


True... To an extent. Although I reject the notion that my A-Levels were based on trivia! I think people forget, sometimes, that in areas such as mathematics - we learn pretty much the entirity of human achievement in the field up to, say, 80 years ago. This isn't to be sniffed at!

Memory of facts may seem mundane, comrade, but it makes sense in subjects such as the sciences. Of course, at the higher level - as you mention - things progress further. "We" derive equations for "ourselves".

But I don't think your next point quite follows...



(1) Can people do that? Can people pick up enough clues from the media, pop culture, the internet, etc. to become critical thinkers? Especially critical thinkers about the social order in which they live?

(2) The evidence thus far has been disappointingly meager; it "looks like" most people have brains stuffed with so much crap that they're fortunate to be able to find their way home after work.

(3) By the incoherent movement to set up alternative schools of all kinds, the working class indicates its preference for knowledge over ignorance for its kids.


(1) - Unfortunately, I think "pop culture" is more of a destructive force. It cajoles us to conform; the influences do not encourage any independent thought. At least, that's what I thought... Do you think otherwise?

(2) - Yes, I agree...

(3) - So how do you reach this conclusion? I think those that set up "alternative schools" are in the minority. A shame - because it's a fantastic idea. I feel that most of the populace are gradually becoming reconciled to a life of dull monotony. 9-5, five days a week, get smashed on Fridays and Saturdays, laze around on Sunday... :( Of course, us Communists must combat this!



As you know, a "good job", in this sense, is merely one with a high salary. In making the assumption that university students will get such a job, the advocates of tuition fees acknowledge (or perhaps encourage) the idea that the goal of education should be to eventually earn more money.


This is a major problem - I agree. Although this kind of attitude sometimes persists amongst the students too&#33; I remember in maths lessons, a few chaps would always ask "Why is this necessary? When am I going to use it later in life?" All foul accounting types... <_< I think education should be devoted to promoting thought processes, questioning, developing the powers of the mind... If this "leads" into "employment", that&#39;s a bonus&#33; :)

[Wiesty]

o and by the way canada is above u guys
and we dont live in igloos

[monkeydust]

This is a major problem - I agree. Although this kind of attitude sometimes persists amongst the students too&#33; I remember in maths lessons, a few chaps would always ask "Why is this necessary? When am I going to use it later in life?" All foul accounting types... I think education should be devoted to promoting thought processes, questioning, developing the powers of the mind... If this "leads" into "employment", that&#39;s a bonus&#33;

True.

For me the issue of top-up fees always begs the question:

"What if I seek an education not to secure a high paid job, but instead to learn for its own sake, for personal enrichment and pursuit of interest?"

[redstar2000]

Although I reject the notion that my A-Levels were based on trivia&#33; I think people forget, sometimes, that in areas such as mathematics - we learn pretty much the entirety of human achievement in the field up to, say, 80 years ago. This isn&#39;t to be sniffed at&#33;

Did you learn how to do it? Did you learn what made those guys ask the kinds of questions that made it possible for them to do it?

I will certainly grant that the coherent knowledge of facts is extremely useful...but the problem is that a coherent knowledge of factual material over a reasonable stretch of human knowledge is no longer possible.

Hence, most kids are taught "bits & pieces" of history, language, science, etc. None of it is really related to anything else. It&#39;s interesting to learn that inspite of those "Easter eggs", rabbits are actually mammals and give birth to live young...but the role of rabbit and egg in Christian mythology goes unmentioned because that would raise "difficulties".

I suspect that I&#39;m not the only person who discovered at a young age that if you really want to learn anything coherent about a subject, you&#39;re compelled to go to a public library and start exploring on your own. (I can only dream of what I might have learned if the internet had existed in 1954&#33;)


Unfortunately, I think "pop culture" is more of a destructive force. It cajoles us to conform; the influences do not encourage any independent thought. At least, that&#39;s what I thought... Do you think otherwise?

I think it&#39;s complicated. Superficially, "pop culture" reinforces capitalist ideology for the most part. But I think a careful examination would reveal a subversive "sub-text" in most pop culture.

The reason for this probably rests with the creators ("content providers") of pop culture. To the extent that they are both intelligent and have some artistic ambition, they "can&#39;t help" putting more into what they create than the client (corporation) asked for. That "more" conveys a message that corporations would rather not deliver -- but what can they do? They need another "hit"...so they grumble and distribute.

Note also that I mentioned the media and the internet; it&#39;s the whole ocean that kids are swimming in. A line from a song plus a scene from a movie plus a chapter in a popular novel plus a link to an internet site equals ???


I think those that set up "alternative schools" are in the minority.

To be sure. It&#39;s a growing minority but still very much a minority.

Furthermore, it&#39;s very mixed politically; many "alternative schools" are simply fronts for Christian and other religious indoctrination and represent an effort to protect reactionary parental views from secular criticism.

Yet I think there is a "pool" of discontent in the working class. They dimly perceive that their kids are growing up "ignorant" and that some kind of alternative to what exists is needed.

When working class parents purchase personal computers and internet connections "for their kids", that says something.


I feel that most of the populace are gradually becoming reconciled to a life of dull monotony. 9-5, five days a week, get smashed on Fridays and Saturdays, laze around on Sunday...

Actually the trend is more like 8-8, six days a week, or worse.

There was a report out not long ago that Americans are now working more hours per week since they did back in the 1920s.

I don&#39;t think "being reconciled" is going to be very high on the list of reactions.


I remember in maths lessons, a few chaps would always ask "Why is this necessary? When am I going to use it later in life?"

An eminently reasonable question.

Is there anything more depressing than the prospect of being forced to learn a large mass of material in which you are utterly uninterested? The waste of time and energy that could be spent learning something that fascinated you is appalling.

Not to mention the not inconsiderable secondary effect: the presence in a classroom of people who are bored shitless by the subject is a perceptible "downer" even for the people who are interested. It didn&#39;t matter in high school...everyone was bored shitless&#33; But in a college classroom, it was annoying and distracting to be one of the three or four interested people while the rest of the room was dozing off. (They should have furnished cots&#33;)

The sense that knowledge should be "useful" and "relevant" comes from something that I think is pretty deeply rooted in humans: the urge to engage in purposeful activity.

Having determined such an activity, we seek relevant and useful knowledge to do it better and, given the chance, ignore knowledge that has no bearing on what we plan to do.

Consider adults: physicists rarely subscribe to the professional journals of historians and vice versa.

Why should kids be any different?

It&#39;s easy enough to suggest that "people should love knowledge for its own sake"...but I think that&#39;s a very misleading way to put it. Nobody loves any knowledge for its own sake; it has to at least excite a minimum of curiosity before anyone will bother learning it. It has to be useful for relieving boredom, if for nothing else.

We humans hate boredom&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The idealist]

Memory of facts may seem mundane, comrade, but it makes sense in subjects such as the sciences.

Nope. Just knowing things like Ohm = Volts / amperes will not help you much unless you know more formula. Sure it will help you if that is all you need to know.
But you might as well say "This is a car. You steer it from here. you twist this thing left and it goes left and you twist it right and it goes right, ok? Now off you go."

Fat help that would be if you get a puncture.

The sciences are based on knowing whythings work instead of how things work.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Did you learn how to do it? Did you learn what made those guys ask the kinds of questions that made it possible for them to do it?

I suspect that I&#39;m not the only person who discovered at a young age that if you really want to learn anything coherent about a subject, you&#39;re compelled to go to a public library and start exploring on your own.


Firstly... Yes&#33; In many cases, we did. Often, a question in an A-Level physics paper would read: "Derive, from first principles, xxx&#39;s law of yyy." We are "forced" to follow the same thought processes and paths as the older "masters"&#33;

Whether this was the case in normal schools, I&#39;m not so sure. <_<

Secondly... Well, sure. I agree. But then, no school could realistically be expected to teach a child EVERYTHING there is to know about, say, particle physics. In the UK, we learn "the basics" of all the "core subjects" until the age of 16. Then, if we so wish, we can take A-Levels - these focus on four subjects in much greater detail. Of course, there are still limitations; we work 9-4 five days a week and can&#39;t cover much more than we already do. In which case, going to a library is an admirable solution. School should aim to encourage this sort of "further interest", for sure. But it can&#39;t be EXPECTED to. Can it?



Note also that I mentioned the media and the internet; it&#39;s the whole ocean that kids are swimming in. A line from a song plus a scene from a movie plus a chapter in a popular novel plus a link to an internet site equals ???


This point is an interesting one. "Pop-culture" is subversive... Well - I doubt it. Sure, there are undoubtedly "subliminal messages" contained within this medium. Most are designed to further indoctrinate children into the Capitalist myth. A few may actually be "revolutionary"; or at least, develop thought in that direction... For those that can pick them out.

You&#39;re an intelligent chap. So am I. We may very well look at a particular "source" and note its anti-Capitalist connotations. But then, we already know what a scourge Capitalism is. Sadly, I think the majority of the populace are just too stupid (perhaps due to the failings of the education system) to recognise these hints; they are ignored by all but the "intellectual minority" - who, like I said, are naturally revolutionaries&#33;&#33; :)



When working class parents purchase personal computers and internet connections "for their kids", that says something.


Hahaha&#33;&#33; :D But then, comrade, the kids end up playing Counter-Strike for months at a time and ignoring school work completely&#33;&#33; (I know, it happened to me...)



Is there anything more depressing than the prospect of being forced to learn a large mass of material in which you are utterly uninterested? The waste of time and energy that could be spent learning something that fascinated you is appalling.


Fair enough. But trust me, these comments were directed at the teacher because "Binomial expansions" offered nothing in the way of future utility - not because they were boring&#33; Many of us found "Integration" boring, too. Mainly because it was so easy. But there were few complaints from the accountants - it can be used in hundreds of ways by that particular field&#33;

Accountants ought to be burnt at the stake. :ph34r:



The sciences are based on knowing why things work instead of how things work.


I agree. But "facts" and "equations" are a large part of this.

[Pawn Power]

The school system in the US, as I have experienced does not educate the students, rather they "school" them. They "school" the students to learn things to pass standardized tests and things like that. You really don&#39;t gain knowledge in schools rather then learn a few tricks. It is not until collage until you start to gain knowledge but even there it is becoming moribund.
Besides in public schools in the US education comes second to discipline and learning to conform and listen to your "boss". :angry:

[cormacobear]

Teacher&#39;s unions in Canada are one of the most powerfull, so teachers do financially pretty well.

It appears from your discourse that most of you beleive the inherent flaw is in the corriculum. That is of course a very valid observation. But how do you change the corriculum first you must increase tax funding of the schools to ween them off the corporate teat. Secondly you need to provide the system withindividuals who care enough about what they do to desire the necessary changes.

The key to this is to raise and nationalize the required education level necessary for teaching. Many states allow poeple to teach classes with only 6-8 months of post secondary training. With that level of personal investment not only are the teachers going to not care what they&#39;re asked to teach the children, but they probably wouldn&#39;t notice if it was wrong.

In Canada and in most U.S. districts a four year degree is required to teach grades 1-12, although few teachers are hired at the 10-12 level without 6 years of post secondary. Insisting on this across the board in U.S. school districts regardless of the communities wealth would be a good start.

[refuse_resist]

The teachers board here in the U.S. was once actually refered to as a &#39;terrorist organization&#39; by a few reactionary government officials.

The education system here has seriously been deteriorating and still continues, especially here in California. When I start college this fall the tuition fees are expected to increase and there have also been huge cuts for spending on education. Music, sports, as well as other programs have been slowly starting to be removed from certain schools. There were also quite a few schools in the area that had to shut down because of these cuts in spending.

[NYC4Ever]

Look at all of this rhetoric. The Public School system in the United States was founded by one of your own ilk: John Dewey.
We should go Ancient Greek all the way and go 95% privatized education.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We should go Ancient Greek all the way and go 95% privatized education.

I see. Education only for those that can afford it&#33; :angry:

[NYC4Ever]

Hold on there Chachi, there will be financial aid, ofcourse. Whats wrong with privatized education? You know that there are some people who just do want to go to school.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Whats wrong with privatized education?

It puts making money ahead of educating people.

[NYC4Ever]

It puts making money ahead of educating people.



People revolve themselves around making money. We should put that to good use and educate the masses in this failed experiment of public schooling here in the States.
Don&#39;t you see there is a trillion dollar market for education out there? If we had free-enterprise education, businessmen would be funding schools all over the place, each one competing to offer the best services, the highest standards. Parents would take an active role, shopping for the best schools for their children. They would be clients, not voters. My God, what a renaissance of education we would have.

[Osman Ghazi]

If we had free-enterprise education, businessmen would be funding schools all over the place, each one competing to offer the best services, the highest standards.

As always, you fail to notice the huge gap between th theory of what you are saying and its practical application. Businessmen care very little about "competing to offer the best services, the highest standards". They care a lot about making money. Thus, any increase in education is merely incidental. That is of course, if you experience any increase at all.

However, what with the US governments policy of completely underfunding public schools, it won&#39;t be long until anyone with a scrap of cash will abandon the system and you&#39;ll get your way. Thusly, only the children of the destitute will be forced to go there, laying bare the myth of equality in America.

You just don&#39;t see it, do you? The problem with private education is that the poor recieve a worse education than the rich and thusly stay poor, exacerbating the tendency of capitalism to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. This makes the whole situation completely untenable, and the rulers are forced to restore the old system.

[NYC4Ever]

As always, you fail to notice the huge gap between th theory of what you are saying and its practical application. Businessmen care very little about "competing to offer the best services, the highest standards". They care a lot about making money. Thus, any increase in education is merely incidental. That is of course, if you experience any increase at all.

However, what with the US governments policy of completely underfunding public schools, it won&#39;t be long until anyone with a scrap of cash will abandon the system and you&#39;ll get your way. Thusly, only the children of the destitute will be forced to go there, laying bare the myth of equality in America.

You just don&#39;t see it, do you? The problem with private education is that the poor recieve a worse education than the rich and thusly stay poor, exacerbating the tendency of capitalism to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. This makes the whole situation completely untenable, and the rulers are forced to restore the old system.

Oh please. The same can be said about leftist social practices on the theory and the practical application. People want to see results and will demand results. Thus, if the buisnessman really cares about making any money he would demand to offer the best service otherwise the competition would beat him out. The best of the best schools here in the country are private and they are all well accredited school. Even some state schools have prices that rival private ones because they are in high demand. The schools will also demand priorities from the students.
You guys really hate the marketplace of ideas don&#39;t you? Always throwing in that gap theory. You know, I think it&#39;s unfair that rich people can buy better computers than poor people can, it gives them an unfair advantage, there&#39;s a &#39;Processor Gap&#39;. I propose huge tax hikes on rich people to create and fund a Federal Department of Computers. Rather than vicious, unproductive competition between computer companies, each trying to make evil profits, we&#39;ll have government take it over and provide free computers for all.

What do you think would happen? I&#39;ll tell you what, we would be using Commodore 64s and your video game console would be an Atari 2600. Glad we live in a free country, otherwise you&#39;d be playing &#39;Combat&#39; right now.

The problem is that you guys trust big government more because you can regulate it. While I do not trust the government with my personal responsibilities.
And you guys call yourselves free thinkers?

[Nas]

progress (socialism) can&#39;t be stopped only slow down, technology can&#39;t be stopped only slow down



ps: the people who live during the Atari and Combat years had lots of fun

[Osman Ghazi]

Thus, if the buisnessman really cares about making any money he would demand to offer the best service otherwise the competition would beat him out.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, I can see it now "I demand to offer the best services. If you don&#39;t let me I&#39;ll kil myself, I swear it&#33;"

Well, you sure can make me laugh.


The best of the best schools here in the country are private and they are all well accredited school.

Yes, and they cost a couple hundred grand to get into them. Tell me; how many of those kids were born rich and will die rich? Probably all of them, right? Now, how many do you think came from Chilean parents who immigrated to the country? I&#39;ll give you a hint: it&#39;s less than one.

The thing is this: education is not a playstation. If you can&#39;t afford a playstation, it doesn&#39;t doom you to a life of poverty. If you can&#39;t afford an education, like say, most people in your country, you are so totally ed that you can almost never recover.