And I thought Alabama's educational leaders were idiots [Archive]

Peter Frazier

08-05-2003, 04:38 AM

That was a bit harsh.
Christoph, on behalf of all those teachers who busted their arses teaching you so that you could better the world by grossly over-generalising their conditions: FUCK YOU.
There are too many points for me to froth at here but I'll try not to rant.

The whole question of teacher assessment opens up a can of worms. I knew a teacher who was a pretty atrocious speller. I had my reservations about her being a primary school teacher but most of the staff at her school believed that she was an excellent teacher because of the relationship she had with her students and because of the other things she did in class. It's a pretty hard call what is better for the student: someone with all the requisite academic skills but no people skills to deliver them or someone with nurturing skills but no advanced academic ability. So what should we assess in a teacher? And in all fairness, how does every other public servant get assessed? Most systems will remove teachers for gross incompetence- sacking someone for mediocrity is a bit difficult because it's hard to nail what it is.

In a perfect world all teachers would be intellectual demi-gods who also had the ability to inspire students and yet still provide a caring , individualised environment. Likewise, all police would be incorruptable, journalists honest and programmers able to create a game which didn't need frickin patches. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Everyone has flaws.

Despite Christoph's assertion that teachers are slack-jawed yokels who work for peanuts because they are useless in any other field of endeavour, may I instead suggest that there are people who still (quaintly) think that they may have to help other people. That they have a duty to care for other people and an obligation to pass on knowledge that they have learned. That sometimes doing your best for the world involves more than making money and thinking that your minimized tax bill is some form of personal largesse which makes you a wonderful human being.

And I don't think that the unions adequately represent the teachers. The worst thing about teacher's unions is that they are comprised of the most idealistic members of an idealistic profession. Instead of devising simple strategies to improve the conditions of their members, most of their efforts are spent creating a socialist paradise on earth. God knows how many times I've wished for a wharf-workers style union to step in and cause some genuine discomfort for people. At the moment we're too nice because, shrug, that's what we are.

My salary does work out to be a bit less than $36000 US. I was talking to my students today about how much teachers earned. Their comments quickly changed from 'Teachers get really good pay' to 'My father earns heaps more' when they started figuring out how much a week I took home. Also bear in mind that I teach in one of the lower socio-economic areas in town. You'll never see a brand new car in a teacher's car park unless it's a female member of staff who is married to a tradesman. :roll:

graller

08-05-2003, 05:45 AM

Chris Nahr

08-05-2003, 06:37 AM

Geez Peter, of course there are some teachers who actually try to do good work. I've experienced some myself. Unfortunately, they were a minority among those who would rather talk about their private relationships or political viewpoints, or simply spread gross misinformation about the subjects they were supposed to teach. And this experience was confirmed at university when the laziest fools who recoiled at the mere sight of a book were invariably enrolled in paedagogics.

And why not? The parents apparently don't care if their children learn anything at school, as long as they're out of the way and get a diploma. The school system doesn't care. Most children sure as hell don't care. Competent academics generally avoid the teaching profession because they know it's nasty work that doesn't pay well (compared to the jobs they could get). Society at large doesn't care as long as the masses get sufficient education for menial work, and whatever elite is required gets sufficient education on their own time or at private institutions.

So we have a large number of idiots who can't or won't find any other work (as graller pointed out state employment does have some unique benefits), and a smaller number driven by naiveté or idealism. The latter either go into early retirement or develop stomach ulcers, trying to fight an intolerable situation with which much of the rest of society is apparently quite happy.

The concept of higher education for the masses didn't work out -- it's as simple as that. Most people neither need nor want higher education. For most kids aged 12-18, schools are simply a place where they hang out and kill time before joining the workforce. All other problems follow from this basic fact, the widespread incompetence of teachers as well as the lack of discipline that Peter has complained about elsewhere. Shrink higher education back to elite schools, and your problems are gone. Of course that's ideologically unacceptable so it won't happen.

Bub, Andrew

08-05-2003, 06:58 AM

Christoph Nahr: the new Brian Koontz.

Nathan Phoenix

08-05-2003, 07:17 AM

I'm torn between "the union is extremely annoying" and "what do you expect to happen in education when you pay teachers crap." Apparently the average salary for a 15 year teacher is only 36,000 (http://www.therationalradical.com/documents/teacherssalaries.htm).

My mother has been teaching for more than 30 years and she does not make that much. That has a lot to do with the region she lives in, a town of 800 in Nebraska, but I still feel we need to pay our teachers more than we do.

Jason McCullough

08-05-2003, 07:27 AM

I like unions, its just that the teacher's union is far too powerful. I'd like english teachers to know english, thank you very much.

I actually don't think there's an oversupply of US teachers; states are always whining about how they can't find enough (persistent shortages tend to indicate they're underpaying).

Yes, it's funny that the administrator can't pass it, but we don't pay him to write - should we test his ability to work in a gas station? Do surveying?

Chris Nahr

08-05-2003, 08:14 AM

Christoph Nahr: the new Brian Koontz.

Well, I guess we could also discuss which irrelevant politician would raise or lower some budget by a few dollars, and congratulate ourselves on proposing such a brilliant solution... maybe that's more acceptable to people who are scared to death at the thought of deviating one millimeter from officially sanctioned thinking?

You think it's some kind of accident that education throughout the West is fucked up, and has been worsening for decades? You think it's just because politicians are so much stupider than us enlightened folks? Maybe you have a secret conspiracy theory that you would like to share with us?

Schools are exactly as society wants them to be. If you find that statement unacceptable you should revisit your preconceptions about the society you're living in.

Jason McCullough

08-05-2003, 08:30 AM

You think it's some kind of accident that education throughout the West is fucked up, and has been worsening for decades?

As much as I think the system needs work, education hasn't been worsening; virtually every metric of note has increased consistently.

DTG

08-05-2003, 09:22 AM

I think it varies dramatically. In my old hometown in CT we got the budget from the school board mailed to our houses....the average pay for high school teachers in that town in 1996 was 72000 dollars. With summers off and all the school vacations and incredible health benefits when compared to anyone who works in normal private sector jobs....

Yeah, that's pretty normal for a tenured teacher in Connecticut, but I understand that we have the highest teacher salaries in the country (what's with tenure for an elementary school teacher, anyhow - - but that's another thread). I don't mind the high salaries, even though 95% of those salaries and benefits are financed by our local property taxes (about $5,000/yr for a $250,000 home, plus another $1000/year on our cars, as an example.) We get what we pay for. The idea of teachers making only in the low 30k's is horrible to me. Even with July and August off, the rest of the year they have to be "on" every frigg'in day. No flex time, no slipping in a 1/2 hour late, no cutting out early on Friday afternoon, and I imagine making a doctor's appointment is a PITA. And at the end of the day they are the most important humans outside of the family that my kids will interact with during their entire childhood.

But I do think they should be able to pass a simple competency test. The superintendent as well. We're not talking about matrix algebra and medieval literature for the American History teacher - we're talking about the basics. Someone who makes north of $150k / year as a professional educator must be able to prove they can read, write and add.

And the unions here frustrate me as well sometimes. Their refusal to even consider staples of our current economic climate such as 1-year wage freezes or a $100/month health insurance premium seem to me to be arrogant and insensitive.

Brian Koontz

08-05-2003, 09:33 AM

Christoph Nahr: the new Brian Koontz.

Gramatically he's simpler and much more traditional, and he's style-less as far as I can tell, but I can see the comparisons. I thought both of his posts in this thread were impressive.

The issue I have with school teachers is that they are *teaching* students. They HAVE to be both moral and wise... if they lack in either there are problems in the development of the child both from an educational and personal standpoint.

I concur with Nahr that most teachers are mediocre. I concur that some of them turn teaching into a sort of soapbox where they push their personal issues. I'll add that many of them give up in a subtle way... they replace education with entertainment. Their attitude becomes, since students don't want to learn, why should we teach them?

I also agree with him about society's attitude toward it. Parents aren't pushing for better education, at least at the "masses" level.

All of this partially underlies the movement toward Private education... the parents who DO care see what is happening and want their kids OUT of the system. Privatizing the system holds teachers more accountable for their actions.

If you want to talk about problems that affect America as a whole, this is one of the big ones. And it won't be solved until Nahr is taken seriously.

Chris Nahr

08-05-2003, 09:39 AM

As much as I think the system needs work, education hasn't been worsening; virtually every metric of note has increased consistently.

What metrics are those, and since when have they been increasing? Are you sure they haven't just been lowered to accomodate the status quo? Grades are not necessarily comparable over time, and I'd find it hard to believe that any measure indicating discipline or social behaviour would have been increasing.

I do admit that my views are coloured by the German situation where the quality of education is dropping like a stone while violence at school is rising rapidly. I'll also reiterate that I'm not talking about the top students, they might be smarter than ever (and possibly keep up test averages).

Actually I'm not necessary talking about students -- ever noticed that whatever most people learn at school is apparently learned so superficially that it's all forgotten at the age of 25 or 30? These people might test well at school but isn't something wrong with the school system if they don't remember any of it? I'm sure you know some old folks who can recite entire poems that they learned at school, retained a perfect grasp of at least the local flora, fauna, and geography, know a range of classic authors and artists, and can make fairly complex calculations without even a piece of paper, let alone a calculator. Why is it that nothing learned in modern schools seems to stick? What and how are they learning if tests indeed show an improvement?

Jason McCullough

08-05-2003, 09:48 AM

IQs keep increasing from generation to generation, for one. They have to recenter the test all the time.

And I don't think memorization is particularly useful; it's something people do when they don't have ready access to reference material.

But I do think they should be able to pass a simple competency test. The superintendent as well. We're not talking about matrix algebra and medieval literature for the American History teacher - we're talking about the basics. Someone who makes north of $150k / year as a professional educator must be able to prove they can read, write and add.

If a school administrator is a "professional educator," then a manager at an auto plant is a "assembly line worker."

DTG

08-05-2003, 10:38 AM

But I do think they should be able to pass a simple competency test. The superintendent as well. We're not talking about matrix algebra and medieval literature for the American History teacher - we're talking about the basics. Someone who makes north of $150k / year as a professional educator must be able to prove they can read, write and add.

If a school administrator is a "professional educator," then a manager at an auto plant is a "assembly line worker."

Uh..no. He (or she) is a "manager at an auto plant". If he were managing assembly line workers, then one would expect him to know that the engine goes in front and the wheels go on the bottom, and that he'd know the fundamentals of the 4-cycle internal combustion engine and how a transmission works. He would not be expected to be able to step up to any point on the assembly line and start welding away, nor would he be expected to design the transmission. But he'd have to have general competence in his field and be able to understand the lingo, and know what his people are up to when they stand on the line all day.

If the superintendent is not a professional educator, then he's a professional....what? Just a removed administrator with some accounting skills? I view them as the leader of the school system - - they help make the ultimate decisions on curriculum, teacher discipline, and how to allocate the money across a wide range of educational needs. Where I live, that's their job description. Maybe it isn't critical that they know how to use a semicolon properly. But they do need to be competent in the educational environment. A leader only become credible with competence. These exams are not rocket science. Passing does not mean having to score 100%.

Jason McCullough

08-05-2003, 11:02 AM

I was objecting to you calling him a "professional educator"; he isn't. It's mislabeling to move the terms of debate. He's a school administrator, probably a subtype of "institution administrator." Is a prison warden a "prison guard?" A hospital administrator a "doctor?"

And I fail to see what being a "school leader" has to do with semicolon placement and grammar; someone who is barely able to read or write could theoretically be a *great* school administrator. The job's glad-handling politics, negotiation, and contracts.

Mike Cathcart

08-05-2003, 11:47 AM

Shit. I'm agreeing with Jason. I knew coming into this forum was a bad idea.

I'd just like to add that, given the fact that good teachers are so hard to come by, I think I'd rather have all of the people who can pass the test actually teaching.

voltaic

08-05-2003, 11:50 AM

IQs keep increasing from generation to generation, for one. They have to recenter the test all the time.

And I don't think memorization is particularly useful; it's something people do when they don't have ready access to reference material.
Just to be sure everyone is clear on this, Jason, are you saying that your metric for the increasing standards and quality of public education is IQ tests and an opinion about memorization?

Jason McCullough

08-05-2003, 12:02 PM

I'm saying that there's tons of metrics showing educational improvements over the years; the first ones of the top of my head are IQ tests, even though I don't put all too much stock in IQ tests.

The memorization thing was a side comment, but probably needs a whole other thread to discuss. I just don't like rote memorization learning in general, so don't think "people used to memorize stuff more" is a useful comparision.

voltaic

08-05-2003, 12:29 PM

I'm saying that there's tons of metrics showing educational improvements over the years; the first ones of the top of my head are IQ tests, even though I don't put all too much stock in IQ tests.
So even though you don't really believe in IQ tests (and in fact most educated people don't), you quote it as a reason for your assertion? Come on dude.

The memorization thing was a side comment, but probably needs a whole other thread to discuss. I just don't like rote memorization learning in general, so don't think "people used to memorize stuff more" is a useful comparision.
I agree. That's why I pointed out that it isn't a good metric for what this thread is about.

Anyways what are some of the metrics? I ask because I haven't seen them. No matter what political party everyone seems to think public education needs more money because its going to hell in a handbasket, so where are the studies that show otherwise?

DTG

08-05-2003, 12:41 PM

... someone who is barely able to read or write could theoretically be a *great* school administrator. The job's glad-handling politics, negotiation, and contracts.

Wow. You win. No wonder so many people think public education is going down the toilet. We have people believing that reading and writing is optional for those who run our schools.

The effects of "glad-handling politics" is pretty much the ONLY thing that bothers me about public schools, as I said in my earlier post.

Jason McCullough

08-05-2003, 02:56 PM

Wow. You win. No wonder so many people think public education is going down the toilet. We have people believing that reading and writing is optional for those who run our schools.

Ok, smarty man: explain to me how the ability of the school administrator to read and write beyond, say, an 8th grade passing level will affect the education students receive. Make sure to note that he has a full-time secretary. As a bonus, explain how a school administrator who's a bureaucratic genius, *but gets 31 of 100 questions wrong on a teacher competence test*, is worse at his job than a bureaucratic incompetent who gets only 29 of 100 wrong. Why do you think grammar ability and management ability are correlated?

So even though you don't really believe in IQ tests (and in fact most educated people don't), you quote it as a reason for your assertion? Come on dude.

Touchy touchy: I'm ambivalent about them. You don't find many slack-jawed yokels who can run the board on the college entrance exams, which are disguised IQ tests, but I'm not sure about any stronger claims than that. I've known plenty of smart people who do atrociously on them; it's very domain-specific knowledge.

I'd say "SAT scores keep going up", but those are really just disguised IQ tests. Same deal with those exit-requirement tests states keep coming up with. How about:

The US share of Nobel Prizes is as ludicrously high as ever. I haven't heard businesses complain their employees have been getting less informed. Real dollar spending per student keeps going up. Productivity (strongly associated with education level) keeps going up, exploding recently. The level of college education the population has keeps going up.

Do you know of anything that shows it getting worse?

Peter Frazier

08-05-2003, 02:58 PM

For everyone who thinks that in the good old days education was superior and that results were much better, I'd suggest that you recalibrate your memories.
Perhaps you can try and recall how many lower ability students there were. I'm thinking that most people posting on this forum were pretty well educated and located in the top classes of their cohort. Try and remember how many of those lower students could recite the Illiad or whatever it is that Christoph thinks was a benefit of classic education. It probably wasn't many of them. Most of you wouldn't have seen what happens in lower ability classes.

It seems like the public school system is under attack in the same way that individual teachers are. All I can say is that there are more variables to education than the school and teacher. It doesn't matter how hard a school tries- if the child and their family don't care about education, it won't happen.

All students who have a fundamental respect for education and the authority of the teacher will get something out of it. Unfortunately respect for education is a hard thing to achieve in some cultural groups. (I'm not talking race here- mainly the breed of welfare generations who don't realise that education is one of the few ways to pull their children out of economic misery).

Respect for teachers has also been undermined in so many ways. Our discipline methods have changed to make us appear less threatening, our salaries are a joke, there is more parental influence/interference in schools, there are more complaint mechanisms against teachers, our unions are hated by everyone, we are made to be more accountable, Hell most teachers in the media are made to appear as unfeeling, lazy fools.

All of these points may have people shrugging their shoulders and saying that they don't have a problem with transparency but unfortunately working with children and teenagers requires a fair amount of bluff when it comes to our powers. When students realise that we are adults with little authority over them, they will take advantage of it. If you want the good old days of education, give us back the good old values.

Also remember that the sort of student who left school at age 15/16 to dig ditches or stack shelves is now staying on because the jobs aren't there. We are dealing with a larger number of students who don't really want to be at school. Try teaching a class with some of them in it.

Despite all this I still feel that students nowadays are more confident communicators than students of my generation. They may not have the academic rigour but I suppose that that means they will be the administrators on $150 000, whilst the few that can read and write will end up teaching on $36 000. :roll:

BTW jason, I once had a Principal who had English as a second language (much like the administrator). It was awful because it was impossible for communication to occur without a foul-up happening. Communication requires proficiency in language. If the test was a tricky one based on grammar, I wouldn't worry about it. It seems that this was actually one that covered basic english. It's also not good for morale when people are being sacked for the same thing that he fails.

Jason McCullough

08-05-2003, 03:00 PM

Ah, but the test was written communication, not conversational english.

Bub, Andrew

08-05-2003, 03:41 PM

This argument boiled down in a way that's probably only meaningful to me:

"The good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems." - Billy Joel, High School Dropout.

Robert Sharp

08-05-2003, 04:23 PM

How could IQ scores be getting better? I thought IQ scores were based on averages, so that a 100 is always considered average intelligence. So, if people are not as smart today as they used to be, 100 would still be the average IQ. It just wouldn't be the equal of someone with a 100 IQ 20 years ago.

However, even if I am wrong about that (which I could well be...I don't keep up with IQ testing), I can tell you from the perspective of a college teacher, the high school education system generally sucks. Since I teach at Vanderbilt, I get the better students that come out of it, and I still get students that can't put together a coherent paragraph, much less a whole paper. Certainly, there are bright students, but even they aren't as educated as they should be. Many of them took honors English, but still can't write well. They probably have very high IQs, but a high IQ is NOT the same as a high education level. IQ is supposed to measure ability to learn (I don't think it's good at that, but that's the idea). It's a measure of potential. If I walked into an average undegrad classroom at Vandy and asked for the dates (just the years) of the American Civil War, I would be surprised if 30% knew the answer. If I asked which is correct: 'I feel badly' or 'I feel bad', maybe 20% would get it right. Technically, they are both correct, but the second one is the one most people should be using when they use the first one instead. If you feel badly, that means you aren't very good at feeling things.

However, foreign students are much better, in terms of general knowledge, which is a sign of a good education. They get weeded out of their education system if they aren't doing well. In many countries, there is no strange rule that says everyone should get to go to college.

Now, I am not saying all of this is on the teachers. What I AM saying is that Nahr and Koontz are right to suggest that there are far too many apathetic or just incompetent teachers out there. Of course, society is to blame as well. First, we don't pay teachers enough. I could be a great high school teacher, but there is no way I would ever do it. Second, as a society we downplay education. Oh, we praise job skill training, but that's very different. Alabama is one of the worst states for both these problems. There are many other contributing factors. I am just mentioning two big ones. But Alabama keeps turning away from any attempts to fix the problem. They have no money, and they are now going to vote on whether or not to raise property taxes to get more money for schools (and other programs, I suppose). However, they are doing it as a referendum. It's hard to get people to vote FOR taxes. But I hear that many people are going to, mainly because they are fed up with how bad the schools are.

I happened to graduate from an Alabama high school. It was one of the best in the state. I spent the first 4 weeks of school sitting on the floor in several classes because there weren't enough chairs for everyone. My teachers (I now see) knew painfully little about the subjects they taught. I was taught by football coaches (in most history classes). Those are just a few problems. There were plenty more. I have no idea what it will take to turn all these trends around, but something definitely needs to be done...and soon. Our public education system is a joke. And the poor teachers that Peter is referring to are busting their asses trying make a difference in a system that is making it harder and harder to help these kids. Yeah, MORE people are educated now than ever before. Yeah, the LOWER levels are probably better than they used to be. However, the higher levels are worse. And lots of potentially good students are just slipping through the cracks.

bago

08-05-2003, 04:31 PM

We don't pay school administrator's to write.

GOLD! (http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif)

In a more serious vein, an administrator should have basic comprehension of the language that their profession is steeped in. If one does not have the mental faculty to express basic concepts properly in english, their vocabulary is limited to a series of buzzwords, and are unable to grasp such simple and fundamental concepts such as simple grammar, how can they be expected to administer with any skill? Be the ignorance shown congenital or willfull, it should remain a barrier to such a salary in the field of education.

Jason McCullough

08-05-2003, 05:22 PM

So let's see:

1) An administrator should be able to pass a "basic test of competence in english."
2) However, this is the same thing we're using to "test" schoolteachers, so it's not telling much about them if it's "a basic test," is it?

bago

08-05-2003, 05:43 PM

Succinctly:

Live by the sword, die by the sword...

If you fire people for not passing a basic english test, you had best be able to pass the very same test. Especially if you are going to prove that you are worth 150k a year.

Kalle

08-05-2003, 06:26 PM

bmulligan

08-05-2003, 08:16 PM

Financial aid programs allow almost anyone to attend some type of college. Poorer students almost always qualify for some type of low interest student loan. Even middle class white kids can wrestle some financing out of the government. Not to mention the multitude of scholarship grants and programs that are availible by simply applying and being accepted. I'm not saying it's easy, just that very few people are denied the opportunity to go to college as long as they are willing to put forth some effort to do so.

voltaic

08-05-2003, 08:34 PM

Touchy touchy: I'm ambivalent about them. You don't find many slack-jawed yokels who can run the board on the college entrance exams, which are disguised IQ tests, but I'm not sure about any stronger claims than that. I've known plenty of smart people who do atrociously on them; it's very domain-specific knowledge.
Agreed. As I said before most people don't put any real weight behind IQ tests anymore. That's why I questioned your using them to back your argument.

BTW not touchy, just tired of statements without any real backup. Remind you of Dubya? Ouch.

I'd say "SAT scores keep going up", but those are really just disguised IQ tests. Same deal with those exit-requirement tests states keep coming up with.
However they don't keep going up. Between when I took my SAT in 1992 and when I began college in 1997, there was a new test, the SAT-2 (I think it was called) put in place. The 1450/1600 I got on my SAT-1 was watered down to nearly the 85th or 90th percentile; my score on the SAT-2 would have been more like 1540ish. Why change the scoring methods on the test? I propose (and many people have written) it was to artificially make the scores look better.

The US share of Nobel Prizes is as ludicrously high as ever.
Is there data comparing public US education laureates vs. non-public US education laureates? I'd argue that would be a little more relevant. Hell does the US overall even win as many as 50 years ago?

I haven't heard businesses complain their employees have been getting less informed.
Therefore the quality of public education has improved?

Real dollar spending per student keeps going up.
Therefore the quality of public education has improved?

Productivity (strongly associated with education level) keeps going up, exploding recently.
Is this adjusted for the shift from an industrial economy to a service economy? You don't need a high school education to get an entry-level position as a help desk operator, for example. And keep in mind I'm not saying those are jobs for stupid people or anything, but our topic is the quality of education.

The level of college education the population has keeps going up.
Are they better prepared? Is this adjusted to include people who went to public-education schools 30 or more years ago and are just now "going back to college" because I'm here to tell you many people in the classrooms at both universities I attended were my Mom's age. Shit I attended a sociology class with my aunt. As in sitting next to her.

Do you know of anything that shows it getting worse?
I haven't looked. You made the initial statement that it has gotten better so I was simply asking for good numbers that show it. I'm willing to agree if such data exists in sufficient quantity.

ElRavager

08-05-2003, 10:38 PM

the bottom line is that this guy is a hypocritical jackass that gets paid way too much. sounds like every politician I know, perhaps he should run for office? what's the phrase, "do as I say, not as I do."?

- elrav

Jason McCullough

08-05-2003, 11:55 PM

Volt, I wouldn't publish any of those examples, but you'd expect all of them to at least vaguely correlate with education. Getting hard data looked far too time consuming.

The latest SAT recentering was some sort of demographic (http://www.myscschools.com/reports/sat01/sat_2001.htm) thing. I do remember reading that IQ test scores go up each generation, though; can't find a reference.

Robert Sharp

08-06-2003, 03:40 PM

However, foreign students are much better, in terms of general knowledge, which is a sign of a good education. They get weeded out of their education system if they aren't doing well. In many countries, there is no strange rule that says everyone should get to go to college.

Everyone should get the opportunity to go to college. Because the alternative would be a tremendous waste of potential. That does not mean that everyone wants to go to college, or that everyone benefits from it, but everyone should get the chance. The "weeding out" as you put it, in many cases simply involve poor kids not being able to afford higher education.

What potential? I am not talking about people that can't afford education. I am talking about people who shouldn't be in college. Do you honestly think everyone is smart enough to be in college? These other countries I am talking about have TESTING that keeps kids from advancing to the next level. It isn't a money issue. Granted, some poor kids might not be able to go even if they pass the tests. That's bad news, though many can get scholarships. I'm just saying it is strange that we think everyone deserves to go to college no matter how smart they are. Believe me...that's limiting potential MUCH more than if we were to weed people out. As a teacher, if you have to go more slowly in order to help kids that aren't as smart, the smarter kids lose out.

Of course, as you are aware, part of the problem is that businesses nowadays demand a college education even if the people they hire will never use anything they learned in college. Part of it is a test to make sure they can commit, but part of it is just a societal issue. Colleges are no longer a form of higher education because everyone goes to them. So they aren't being educated any "higher" than anyone else. Add to that grade inflation (the result of the same notion that all people should be treated equally, regardless of talent and/or effort) and we have a pretty messed up education system.

Jason McCullough

08-06-2003, 07:42 PM

College isn't something we award to people for being smart, Robert; it's a glorified post-industrial training program.

Peter Frazier

08-07-2003, 12:23 AM

I'll second Robert's frustration at seeing non-academic students going to college. I've often had conversations with students who've stated 'I'm going to be a lawyer/doctor/forensic psychologist' and woe betide any teacher who dares suggest that the student doesn't have the ability to achieve that goal.
Nowadays we have to pretend that everyone is chock-full of potential to achieve anything they want. It doesn't matter if the student has no work ethic and is somewhere near the bottom of the bell curve- you wouldn't want to be the person to shatter their dreams. Try it and you'll have irate parents talking to the principal about your lack of professionalism and sensitivity.
A curious by-product is the way that some students acknowledge that it is difficult to get into law but there are ways to scam into a degree. Some students have told me with a straight face that they'll scrape into a lesser degree and then eventually transfer into law. It takes everything to stop me yelling 'YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!!' at them.
This doesn't mean I'm the sort of teacher who says 'You're a loser kid, don't try to do anything.' I just believe that many students are setting themselves up for major disappointment when they attempt courses beyond their ability. I also believe we are doing Colleges a disservice by directing lower ability students to their doors.

Robert Sharp

08-07-2003, 10:46 AM

This doesn't mean I'm the sort of teacher who says 'You're a loser kid, don't try to do anything.' I just believe that many students are setting themselves up for major disappointment when they attempt courses beyond their ability. I also believe we are doing Colleges a disservice by directing lower ability students to their doors.

Exactly. You and I are on different sides of the same problem. As a college teacher, I am expected to accept all the kids that the college has accepted. And, believe it or not, despite how I sound here, I try very hard to motivate even kids I think don't have the intelligence that is necessary to succeed in college (or the work habits, etc.). I even get through to some of them. I also get people plagiarizing because they just don't have the skills to write a decent paper on their own. I don't think we are doing these kids any favors by passing them through. First, the kids who really ARE good enough get screwed over because their degrees don't matter as much as they used to (or could still, if not for grade inflation). Second, the kids who aren't good enough might get a job when they get out of college, but that won't make them successful. I imagine there are lots of frustrated human resources people out there who just don't know what they are getting out of a college recruit. If the person isn't motivated, then the scraping by they did in college (which WE let them do) will end up hurting his new company and his own career. The latter is probably what the kid deserves, but the former is just sad.

Jason's certainly right. We don't really have universities anymore. We have job training centers. Even people with liberal arts educations don't seem to know anything beyond their own specific path. I just wish I knew what to do about it. Peter and I are trapped in the same system, and I can tell you from personal experience that it seems impossible to fix anything from within that system.

Brian Koontz

08-08-2003, 08:51 AM

I'll second Robert's frustration at seeing non-academic students going to college. I've often had conversations with students who've stated 'I'm going to be a lawyer/doctor/forensic psychologist' and woe betide any teacher who dares suggest that the student doesn't have the ability to achieve that goal.

What is asked of children?

Is it, What do you deserve to become when you grow up?

Or is it, What do you want to become when you grow up?

The problem is deeper than you know, and considering TEACHERS are some of the primary people asking those questions of children you might want to support your fellow teachers in educational changes.

Its about worship of the Will... worship of what is desired. This desire knows no limits... and certainly a limit like "ability" or "talent" is shunned.

When children hear this question over and over from parents and teachers, why would they think that they have to DESERVE anything?

They just keep repeating to themselves over the years... "I wanna be a law-yer!"... "I wanna be a lawyer"... "I want to be a lawyer"!

Lack of talent or ability is simply an obstacle to overcome in worship of the thing these children are TAUGHT to value... their own WILL.

The problem is deeper than you know...

Peter Frazier

08-08-2003, 07:52 PM

Uhhh I'm not sure what you're point is Brian. Either you subscribe to the idea that if we all act like Pollyanna, everything is going to be just neat; or you accept that some people do not have the ability to achieve their goals. I still can't see what side you are on.

The problem I suffer as a teacher is that if I make my feelings known about a student's inability to achieve said goal, I will be absolutely pilloried.
Teachers are no longer academics whose main concern is to pass knowledge and skills on to students. We are now also the custodians of their intellectual, physical and moral welfare. Any comment we make that may damage their self-esteem is liable to cause a complaint and investigation.
The awful process of an investigation is as follows: you do not know the nature of the complaint, you are not told who made the complaint, you are not told you are being investigated until several weeks through the process, you know you are still teaching the complainant and that they are actively looking to bolster their complaint by finding fault with you, after the investigation you receive a letter saying that the investigation was discontinued because no substantial evidence was found. You will never receive a letter that says you were absolutely correct in your actions or that the complainant made a vexatious or mistaken allegation. Merely that there was not enough evidence to nail you.
And you wonder why teachers don't try to make waves?

Brian Koontz

08-08-2003, 10:10 PM

Uhhh I'm not sure what you're point is Brian. Either you subscribe to the idea that if we all act like Pollyanna, everything is going to be just neat; or you accept that some people do not have the ability to achieve their goals. I still can't see what side you are on.

I'm not much of a subscriber in "sides". My point is to not to wave a banner around and chant a mantra while giving angry glares and fist shakes to a man with a different banner and mantra which call themselves "opposing". I'm not someone who declares himself "left-wing" and then makes sure to toe the party line no matter what.

My point is that ability, talent, and even hard work have taken a backseat to the worship of the will. The important thing (according to current culture) for children is to WANT something, the *getting* part and the process by which they achieve something (which may be what they "want") is *at most* secondary, at worst neglected entirely. Teachers and parents have established a culture of Dreamers. Thus the question "What do you want to be when you grow up?"

And you wonder why teachers don't try to make waves?

Making waves is definitely difficult on both the wave-maker and those around him, but if you call yourself moral you have no choice but to do it. And let the painful, always painful, chips fall where they may.

I see the Noble man as normal, which is probably why I call humans idiots. I do not honor inaction in the face of fear.

Robert Sharp

08-09-2003, 08:43 AM

Brian, do you mean the worship of desires? Of wants? That's very different from the will. Yes, I agree that we place too much emphasis on what people want. We make it seem that just because a kid WANTS something, therefore they deserve that thing. That's a serious problem. But WILL is exactly what is lacking. There is no worship of the will, which would be somewhat empowering. It's just a series of MTV-style desires, which flash for a moment and then burn away, to make room for more desires. But desire is not enough. The problem is that many of these kids (and, as Peter suggests, their parents) want the reward without putting in the time and effort. They think they deserve something because "they have wanted it all their lives". So, I agree with you if you mean we worship 'want' and 'desire'. It's certainly a societal problem. When you read through previous posts on this topic, you will see people measuring the U.S. education system based on wealth, as if production is the measure of educational success. Achieving our desires (for money and material goods) seems to be the only goal, which makes a real education almost impossible.

bmulligan

08-09-2003, 08:30 PM

Seems to me that our culture of unearned rewards is catching up with us. Why should anyone try harder when they know their housing is taken care of, their foodstamps are issued every month, there heathcare and prescriptions are paid for?

When it's easier to beg, steal, or threaten to receive rewards than to earn them, why do things the hard way? They've been conditioned to believe they are 'owed' a living wage, a free heathplan, a free education, public transportation, a computer in every classroom with internet access, 12 more weeks of unemployment benefits, why shouldn't they get the lexus and the 4000 sq ft house with a 4 car garage too?

Peter Frazier

08-10-2003, 04:07 AM

Why would people think that?
Because the people elected to lead them follow the same principles. It is very hard to argue about following a moral/virtuous path when our leaders cling to power by following a 'win at all costs no matter what it takes' ideal.
Note- I'm Australian and I'm referring to my own Prime Minister who could teach President Bush a few things about cynical treatment of the public.
It saddens me to think that the winners will be writing our history and that many ideals that we pursue will be written off as quaint notions.

Brian Koontz

08-10-2003, 07:59 AM

Brian, do you mean the worship of desires? Of wants? That's very different from the will.

I agree they aren't the exact same thing, but will is merely DEEP desire. Usually deep desire corrolates to action of course, but not necessarily to effective action. Will might be called "passionate desire" or "intense desire". I was drawing a comparison between the two.

Yes, I agree that we place too much emphasis on what people want. We make it seem that just because a kid WANTS something, therefore they deserve that thing. That's a serious problem. But WILL is exactly what is lacking. There is no worship of the will, which would be somewhat empowering.

I'm not sure what to debate you on, but I'll focus on 'will' since it seems to be our biggest disagreement...

"My will be done". Now, how does this differ from "My desire be done"? Will implies action, but so does desire.

"I want that" compared to "I will that". Will implies a deep desire, while want could just be wanting a candy bar.

Now, the argument can be made that precisely because will describes a *deep* desire the action (the making the will happen) takes care of itself. But when the will is worshipped, I simply say that what becomes worshipped is deep desire. You can no longer desire a candy bar, you have to desire life-changing things like "becoming a doctor" or "becoming a baseball player".

But when the question "What do you want to become?" is asked, there is no follow-up question of "How do you plan to achieve that?" No follow-up question... the point is to want and not to achieve.

Instead of demonizing the will you could simply shift the focus toward the achievement and away from the desire.

Robert Sharp

08-10-2003, 08:30 AM

I agree Brian, and in fact, that last part is the distinction that I make between desire and will. To me a desire doesn't have to be acted on. I'm not sure what you mean by saying desire is an action. I could WANT to have sex with someone famous, but I am not acting on such a desire. However, to will something is to be trying to make it happen. For instance, a legal will is a person's proclamation of whom they ARE giving stuff to, not just whom they want it to go to. If I will go to the store (as opposed to shall) then I am saying I plan to MAKE it happen.

To me, that's the big distinction. We have a culture of want, but not of will. So people have these desires, and sure they want them to be fulfilled, but they lack the will to make it happen. Will is a power that is not easy to have. A child can want. Maybe that's what you mean by deep desire? The kind of desire that people actually make happen?

Brian Koontz

08-10-2003, 07:09 PM

I agree Brian, and in fact, that last part is the distinction that I make between desire and will. To me a desire doesn't have to be acted on. I'm not sure what you mean by saying desire is an action.

I didn't say desire is an action. Desire can (and should) lead to action. Desire frequently becomes confused with action because it often precedes it.

I could WANT to have sex with someone famous, but I am not acting on such a desire. However, to will something is to be trying to make it happen. For instance, a legal will is a person's proclamation of whom they ARE giving stuff to, not just whom they want it to go to. If I will go to the store (as opposed to shall) then I am saying I plan to MAKE it happen.

That's what is most exciting about the will... "making it happen". That's what is most positive about it. If it was always treated in that context and always marriaged with action I wouldn't have any issues with it.

Perhaps what I and others find at issue is the idea that others are obligated to help you pursue your will. Thus someone (Peter I believe) complained about teachers being treated as a roadblock to be trampled in pursuit of someone "becoming a lawyer" without regard to deserving it.

What is also at issue is the idea of Free Will. Free Will is the individual being unrestrained. Thus only the individual has the power to achieve or deny his will. Free Choice.

The idea of teacher as "roadblock" derives from Free Will. If the will is truly free, then how can a teacher deny the will by saying "no" to the will's request? To Free Will, the denial of that will is monstrous. And that is what Peter sees time and time again.

To me, that's the big distinction. We have a culture of want, but not of will. So people have these desires, and sure they want them to be fulfilled, but they lack the will to make it happen.

Is that so? How about if a teacher rolls over, perhaps is bribed, perhaps is intimidated by a threat, and the person "becomes a lawyer". Does that mean the will was achieved?

I see the issue not as you do, but rather with the divorce of *deserving* something from *wanting* it.

Robert Sharp

08-11-2003, 03:48 PM

I agree Brian, and in fact, that last part is the distinction that I make between desire and will. To me a desire doesn't have to be acted on. I'm not sure what you mean by saying desire is an action.

I didn't say desire is an action. Desire can (and should) lead to action. Desire frequently becomes confused with action because it often precedes it.

I see the issue not as you do, but rather with the divorce of *deserving* something from *wanting* it.

Here is what you said: ""My will be done". Now, how does this differ from "My desire be done"? Will implies action, but so does desire."

That's why I thought you were saying desire is an action. If desire IMPLIES action, then it would always lead to it. However, I agree with you that desire can be confused with action.

But I am still not sure why you are saying that you see this differently than I do just because you separate deserving from wanting. I'm pretty sure that's what I have been saying the whole time. Wanting something is not the same as deserving it.

I never said that willing something means you deserve it either. I just said that willing something means at least trying to make it happen. In that sense, you deserve it more than someone who simply desires but does nothing. But you can certainly will bad things, and you can certainly go about achieving your will in bad ways. Your bribery example shows that well. I wasn't discussing the means because we have been focusing on ends. The problem is that students want to get things without putting in the work.

Your use of free will is perfect because it is so misunderstood. Students think that free will means they should get what they want. To me a free will is one that is allowed to pursue what it wants. I think you and I are on agreement on this, actually. The difference is certainly between just wanting something and actually deserving it (whether because you have worked hard or have talent).

Obviously, some students get this. They are a delight to teach. But others do not, and they are almost impossible to teach. They don't care about learning. They just want an A in order to get the job they want (and THINK they deserve). Why should they get an A? Well...because they need one to get what they want...that's it. There is also a strange idea that it should all be fair. So, you will have students complain that they spent 6 hours working on a paper, while a friend only spent 3, but the friend still got a better grade. This is seen as unfair to many students. It never occurs to them that the other student might be smarter or manage his time better.

It's all very frustrating.

Brian Koontz

08-12-2003, 10:20 PM

Here is what you said: ""My will be done". Now, how does this differ from "My desire be done"? Will implies action, but so does desire."

That's why I thought you were saying desire is an action. If desire IMPLIES action, then it would always lead to it. However, I agree with you that desire can be confused with action.

I was trying to do two things there: One, to show the similarity between will and desire, and two, to show that action follows from desire/will.

You can sum up the Education problem that we are talking about as being a divorcing of desire from effective action.

But I am still not sure why you are saying that you see this differently than I do just because you separate deserving from wanting. I'm pretty sure that's what I have been saying the whole time. Wanting something is not the same as deserving it.

The first disagreement I saw was that you were separating will from desire. My thought was that you were doing this in order to avoid dishonor to the term "will". I don't mind dishonoring the term since the term not only is intertwined with desire but its used as a carte-blanche excuse for EVERYTHING. In short, the will is worshipped at the cost of everything else, including deserving the making real of the will.

I never said that willing something means you deserve it either. I just said that willing something means at least trying to make it happen. In that sense, you deserve it more than someone who simply desires but does nothing. But you can certainly will bad things, and you can certainly go about achieving your will in bad ways. Your bribery example shows that well. I wasn't discussing the means because we have been focusing on ends. The problem is that students want to get things without putting in the work.

I agree that will is more aligned with action or even effective action than merely the term "desire". What we are in possible disagreement about is the politics of the term. When the will lies within a corrupted context (separated from good action) then you should dishonor the term in order to move people away from it (disfavoring it).

OR, alternatively, you could keep the term and attack the corrupted connotations. You yourself have a non-corrupted understanding of the term, but your concept is NOT shared by the general public, including the students, parents, and teachers whose problems we are discussing.

Our disagreement is based on my pursuit of dishonoring the will in order to distance it, while you retain your honoring of it, which is fine if you then pursue attacking corrupted connotations.

Whew... do you understand? ;)

bmulligan

08-12-2003, 10:36 PM

When the will lies within a corrupted context (separated from good action) then you should dishonor the term in order to move people away from it (disfavoring it).

So what is the criterion determining 'good'will from 'bad'will or 'corrupt'will?

Robert Sharp

08-13-2003, 08:37 AM

Whew... do you understand? ;)

Yep. And I largely agree with you. We just think of will differently. Actually, I think your view of it is more in line with what most people today think. I just like to separate will from desire for the reasons I have already mentioned. But the main problem, as you said, is that desiring and deserting have become the same thing to many people. To me, that's the real issue and I think we are in agreement on that problem.

Any thoughts about what to do about it?

Brian Koontz

08-13-2003, 06:31 PM

But the main problem, as you said, is that desiring and deserting have become the same thing to many people. To me, that's the real issue and I think we are in agreement on that problem.

Any thoughts about what to do about it?

I already mentioned that you have to destroy the focus on "What do you want to become?" in place of something like "How are you going to become what you want to become?". That might not even be enough and more extreme steps could be taken. Both students and teachers have to understand the process of becoming something legitimately. So for a lawyer its knowledge of and application of the law, business ethics, creative applications, finances, etc.

Courses on ethics must become mandatory for teachers (to become a teacher) AND students (to become whatever). I don't mean goody-too-shoes ethics or idealized ethics. Whatever ethics are actually part of a job should be either eliminated through the law if deemed bad or TAUGHT in schooling if deemed acceptable, even if not "ideal". I think its deeply unfortunate that the concept of "book knowledge" compared to "real knowledge" is treated truthfully as a chasmic difference. "You've been to school, but I'll tell you how things REALLY are" should be destroyed. Students should not be treated with Kid Gloves.

What I see is a lack of dynamic change in education. I would like to see lower education (elementary school through high school) focus on broad studies and higher education become tailored toward a more specified range of jobs (to some extent this already exists but I'd like a more extreme approach). Organizational Educators (the teachers for the teachers) should first and foremost understand the world that the students are going into and tailor education to fit the world.

Education should undergo frequent revision. As the world develops, so must education.

So to sum up...

* A changed focus from promoting student dreams to promoting student achievement of their dreams
* A more mature approach to students
* A destruction of idealized concepts... tell students how things really are
* A focus away from liberal arts and into specific job or job type training, especially at the above high school level
* A "big picture" understanding of the world that leads to frequent and effective developments in education that match developments in the world

I actually have considerably more ideas for Education as well, but they don't fit in with this thread very well.

Jason McCullough

08-13-2003, 06:58 PM

I can't *even* figure out what you guys are talking about now.

Brad Grenz

08-13-2003, 09:58 PM

Welcome to six weeks ago.

Peter Frazier

08-13-2003, 11:44 PM

So to sum up...

* A changed focus from promoting student dreams to promoting student achievement of their dreams
* A more mature approach to students
* A destruction of idealized concepts... tell students how things really are
* A focus away from liberal arts and into specific job or job type training, especially at the above high school level
* A "big picture" understanding of the world that leads to frequent and effective developments in education that match developments in the world

I think it's been a while since you've been at school, Brian.
I can find faults with all of your points. To sum up-

* You'll be lucky to find a school that doesn't focus on promoting student achievement. The problem I have with 'student dreams' is that they tend to be trendy and usually unachievable. I mean, how many forensic psychologists do we need on this planet? Teenagers also have a tendency to think that they are competent at things they are crap at or crap at things they haven't attempted.
* WTF is a 'more mature approach to students'? Most conflict resolution and counselling in schools is based on treating students in a more mature manner. Ye olde schools could get away with a strict regime of academia and discipline, nowadays schools have to be more accountable and willing to involve parents in finding alternatives for under-achieving students.
I'd say that this process is what has undermined many of the values that we hold. Students and parents act like bush-lawyers and subvert many of the rules which used to be very simple.
*Who knows how things really are? (Apart from you, Brian :wink: ) One teacher's attempt at consumer advocacy is another parent's pinko commie McCullough communism. We have to use general ideals. We also have to engage in 'lies to children' teaching because some students are simply incapable of understanding the shades of grey that come into ethics.
*Yay, vocational colleges. I thought the vast majority of youngsters headed that way anyway. This kind of conflicts with your first point though. What if the kiddies desire a liberal arts degree?
*By 'a big picture' do you mean 'American'? It sounds like it. The problem is, there are so many new trends created in our market-based society that education would be a basket-case if it followed this model. Education has a long lead time bfore the results are obvious- mess with it at your own risk. Best work practices that have been found usually are what is already happening in most schools.
Furthermore, I tend to side on the monks in the Dark Ages who maintained education for its own sake. Once education takes on another agenda it is compromised.

Heh- I feel like I've pumped two fists into the tar-baby coming into this one.

bmulligan

08-14-2003, 05:54 AM

wow...that's way too much time to devote to a koontz rambling on the definition of words.........

copeknight

08-14-2003, 07:27 AM

I am all for teaching testing because I have worked, and still work, with some utter, utter morons. However, perhaps education would be of a little higher quality if administrators valued intelligence when hiring rather than looking only for coaches.

The rub, though, is coming--and will only get worse--in secondary math and science. When no one wants to go into those areas any more (a couple of years ago Northern State University in South Dakota graduated one secondary math person and four secondary science, or something like that), testing is going to exacerbate the shortage. The district I used to teach in in South Dakota has had a high school math opening for the past five years.

Of course, I am now at the point where I believe that if I can pass the test to teach something, I should then be allowed to teach it. It seems only fair :)

Carl

Brian Koontz

08-14-2003, 09:54 AM

* You'll be lucky to find a school that doesn't focus on promoting student achievement. The problem I have with 'student dreams' is that they tend to be trendy and usually unachievable. I mean, how many forensic psychologists do we need on this planet? Teenagers also have a tendency to think that they are competent at things they are crap at or crap at things they haven't attempted.

I don't understand your point. One of my main themes is realism... being able to achieve what you want OR denying what you want since you cannot achieve it. I'm attacking the worship of the will (worship of dreams).

* WTF is a 'more mature approach to students'?

At no point during my schooling was I told about the world outside of the educational system. The message seemed to be that school was about producing idealized citizens with the goal of helping the world become more ideal. Thus the educational system pushes through a kind of ideology which is of course destroyed by the "outside world".

In complete replacement of this method I propose a harmony between the two environments. Instead of the Educational System serving as a kind of Ivory Tower turning out "Clean" people to then become "Dirtified" by the outside world, I propose a system of ethics by which the two environments are married. All acceptable ethics in the "outside world" are taught to students. All acceptable practices in the "outside world" are taught to students. Treat students for the FIRST TIME maturely... that is, treat them as the outside world does and will. The outside world should be no better or worse than the classroom.

*Who knows how things really are? (Apart from you, Brian :wink: ) One teacher's attempt at consumer advocacy is another parent's pinko commie McCullough communism. We have to use general ideals. We also have to engage in 'lies to children' teaching because some students are simply incapable of understanding the shades of grey that come into ethics.

Bullshit. What happens is that teachers *ASSUME* students can't understand shades of gray and then don't teach them about shades of gray... its a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"General ideals" is itself a position. It might be more politically acceptable than "pinko commie McCullough communism" but that doesn't mean its any better. "General" (used there) is just a silly watered down version of something that doesn't offend anyone... is this what should be taught? Should the point behind teaching something be that its best virtue is that it offends the least number of people?

Students should be allowed to voice approval or dissent regardless of the teaching method or "understanding of how things are" and there should always be two-way communication between teacher and student. SERIOUS two-way communication... not just the teacher humoring the "stupid kid" or treating a kid as a vessel to fill to the brim with his unassailable truth.

Teacher: You agree with me! You get an A.
Teacher: You dare to DISAGREE with me? F, F, F!

Just because no one knows all the answers doesn't mean there aren't answers.

*Yay, vocational colleges. I thought the vast majority of youngsters headed that way anyway. This kind of conflicts with your first point though. What if the kiddies desire a liberal arts degree?

No problem, as long as even liberal arts has a vision toward the student's life after their schooling. The transition between school and "outside world" should be smooth.

Nowadays diplomas aren't even that relevant. Employers want to know the PERSON, not the degree. This implies that schools themselves are no longer effective... schools are supposed to be producing people and not degrees. My idea is to move schools to being developers of people.

*By 'a big picture' do you mean 'American'? It sounds like it. The problem is, there are so many new trends created in our market-based society that education would be a basket-case if it followed this model. Education has a long lead time bfore the results are obvious- mess with it at your own risk. Best work practices that have been found usually are what is already happening in most schools.

LOL. I'm just promoting a more sped-up version of what already exists at the college level. For example, you can get a degree in computer game design now from some universities. I simply want even more of a focus placed on emergent market forces and even *anticipating* market forces. It would be exciting for an emerging market to be able to take trained employees versus the normal procedure of on-the-job training until the educational system catches up.

Also, since my vision of lower education IS to be more broad-based and "liberal", this doesn't affect them nearly as much although even that system should develop over time.

Furthermore, I tend to side on the monks in the Dark Ages who maintained education for its own sake. Once education takes on another agenda it is compromised.

Education always has agendas. Your problem is not being able to see "general" as an agenda and your inability to see the Ivory Tower syndrome I described. You promote agenda-less education but even if there was such a thing (which there isn't) it would be tragic to pursue.

Troy S Goodfellow

08-14-2003, 09:57 AM

At no point during my schooling was I told about the world outside of the educational system.

And so the last piece of the puzzle falls into place....

Troy

Jeremy Johnsen

08-14-2003, 10:02 AM

Jason McCullough

08-14-2003, 10:24 AM

Remember that the average isn't the median.....

Robert Sharp

08-15-2003, 01:50 PM

Brian, you aren't making any sense any more. You talk about teaching ethics but you want to get rid of liberal arts education? Same goes with this "teach them about the real world" stuff. What subjects do you think are in a liberal arts education? History, sociology, psychology, philosophy, literature, even sciences are all considered liberal arts. What real world are you talking about? The problem is that students AREN"T getting a liberal arts education. Schools are going away from it into exactly the kind of job training you seem to be promoting. That's what has caused the problem with education. I'm not saying everyone should major in liberal arts. I am saying that a large part of being educated is knowing history, literature, philosophy, etc. Specializing won't solve the problem. In some ways it IS the problem. Half the kids that come out of college aren't interesting to talk to because they don't know anything beyond business or engineering or whatever the majored in. And they don't even tend to know that much about those subjects, at least as far as jobs are concerned. When they go into the workplace they still have to be trained. College is more about preparing them for that.

But I have to say I am really confused now. I have no idea what you are trying to promote. And Peter is pretty much right on the money with the problems with your suggestions.