It is not the fault of the gracious teachers, on the whole, that out education system is flagging compared to Germany's to Japans, to other such economic titans.

It is not the fault of the students- they are clay to be molded, and they come out just as our system, or lack thereof, shapes them.

It is the fault of beaurocracy and politicians. It is the fault of "No Child Left Behind."

WHY must we have cookie-cutter requirements for advancement- not everyone is the same! Would we ask Niels Bohr, the brilliant atomic physicist, to complete an American education were he alive today?

NO! Bohr was a mathematical and scientific genius, but so inept lingistically that he had his mother write even the simplest of speeches, and was a quiet man.

If he were forced into our system, he certainly could not have passed high school, and the world would've been short one of its finest minds of recent times.


At the other end of the spectrum: what of Wittgenstein, the genius linguistic philosopher, or Shakespeare, the most famous (and most often cited as the greatest) author in history:

Should THEY have to just go through the system until they are 18, and graduate?

Germans, if there are any on the site, don't you have a different system, advancement on merit and choice?

Please- I know these systems exist... why not, America?

All men may be created equally free from opression- but by forcing them into cookie-cutter lives and giving them a second-rate education, we have in fact opressed our own people and supressed our own potetial and intelligence.

We can't have any system that acknowledges innate differences in intelligence, nor any that threatens the teachers' unions.

It just wouldn't be America!

I KNOW, Acosmist, what was I THINKING, foolishly believing the differences in our society that make this country and others so successful should be acknowledged over a simple 1950's smile-and-move ideal.

Why go with a scary, radical new formula that just may do the trick for our economy, we're doing so well with our current systems...

I at this point don't care about the left or the right here- Palin and Obama both talk about the America "they" know and love-

I suppose every politician then loves a hypocritically conformist America.

start talking more about Wittgenstein please

What do you mean by "cookie-cutter requirements"? What does that saying mean (given, that english is not my 1st language..)

I, in truth, don't know much at all about Wittgenstein other than mere biographical data- genius, went to school (actually attended, but never met whilst there, the same school as Adolf Hitler for a year or so) thought that philosophy and everything depended on language, Bertrand Russell's protegee, other things... but his philosophy on the whole is unknown to me past the "all depends on language" part.

I'm just getting seriously into philosophy; I know OF quite a few, and know of quite a few famous ideas and systems and concepts...

But the only philosopher I've yet any even the most meager authority on is Nietzsche, having read one of his books and well into another, besides learning his life and hearing lectures on him via Internet.

And that's where I'm taking this idea- Nietzsche's idea that democarcy isn't terrible, but when it's done just for democracy's sake and for no other reason than just blind and beaurocratic "fairness," it's a sham, and people should not be treated all the same.

His ideas on morality- be, as the title says, "Beyond Good and Evil." Both are subjective, mean different things in different situations- there IS no absolute right or wrong short of a God-like deity, which Nietzsche is opposed to, at lest in the Judeo-Christian sense (and even though I'm Jewish I do have to agree with him- we think we "know" God so well because of the Bible and such, but really, that's just foolish and arrogant to think we can understand God at our current stage, let alone have the audacity to use "his" commandments and ask for miracles like he's just a worker...)

There are precious few absolutes, so why must our educational system be so absolutist? I'm a lucky one- I always took it upon myself to, when it comes to English and philosophy and Drama and common sense and such, go beyond, and at the subtle advice of a GREAT English teacher I had in 11th and 12th grade (who agrees that we're being screwed by our system, and always made sure HIS classes broke the mold big-time) started to read philosophy.

And here I am today, barely into college and getting the best scores in my English 102 class to the point my professor recommended I take an Honors Shakespeare class with him next semester, and in addition being one of the highlights and most active minds in Philosophy 101, to the point someone actually said the other day I "revolutionized her way of thinking" on a subject.

(THERE's a scary thought, me revolutionizing people's minds, eh?) ;)

But that's just it- we are ALL DIFFERENT. I can do all that... but I have to remediate in math, re-learn how to add fractions.

But I don't believe in fitting the cookie-cutter form and going with it. I believe and strive to be more and more like Nietzsche's Free Spirits, the forerunners to what he considers will be the ultimate human being, what we should all as a race strive towards:

The Ubermensch.

The Ubermensch isn't a "master race" thing like Hitler's lie- it's a mentally and ethically superior form of man. Imagine Shakespeare, Einstein, Caesar, and Ghandi all as one person- THAT's the idea of the Ubermensch. Those four are "free spirits," having mastered one degree of humanity to an Ubermensch-level. The Ubermensch is all of them together, and Newton, Washington, Bohr, Plato... the best bits of the best minds. The Ubermensch doesn't feel racism or bigotry or greed- he's beyond that. It is man as we wish him to be, chasing his limitless potential.

And HOW can we ever achieve that if we are limited in our potential by a system based more on minimalizing failure rather than encouraging great success?

Treating everyone equally does not mean treating them the same (and same being crappy in this instance). Don't blame a noble concept for its poor implementation by foolish administrators.

Perry, obiwan is saying that the US government forces the public education system to treat everybody the same, and to force all students to pass a standardized test. "Cookie cutter requirements" basically means that we are all meant to achieve the same goals in education.

Correct me if I misinterpreted obiwanobiwan.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Not that we do a great job at that, but that's another rant.

As for your rant, there is nothing preventing you - or anyone else - from supplementing their education outside of the classroom. If you choose to fuck off on World of Warcraft instead of cracking the books, that's your own lookout. Once you hit 18, take your GED and get on with your life if that's your choice

I have different thoughts on education. I believe there should be benchmarks. Once a skill is learned then it is time to move on to the next. There is no reason to hold back the quick students. As for the ones that don't want to be in school kick them out and tell them they are allowed to return once they are ready to do something other than distract the rest of the people actually wanting to learn.

wittgenstein is practically unreadable...bleh

Obiwan,

The purpose of government schools isn't to sharpen great minds. It's to create good corporate employees and predictable consumers who are accustomed to long hours of dull and meaningless toil, trained to stop or resume their tasks at the sound of a bell, proficient at filling out paperwork, and equipped with a very rudimentary knowledge base that will allow them to solve simple problems and perform routine tasks, but be incapable of asking important questions. People like you who are too intelligent for your own good aren't going to fit in that mold. Ever.

@stratagos
is your name meant to mean general?

@vamosrammstein-

Yes, you got me right, there. (And may I complement you on that name... what is it about, that name?) ;)

@Tolstoy

Thanks. :)

@stratagos (and the general populace)

I just don't agree with your assesment. It should NOT BE "wait until 18 and then you can go to college/take GED and then possibly have a shot at some vaguely specialized and unique learning and being."

It SHOULD BE an active experience- not just pass year, progress, pass year, progress-

Because that, despite its name, is NOT progress.

Granted I haven't read it yet, only heard about parts of it via online lecture downloaded (taking the initiative there, stratagos, that's always been me- and I don't even own WOW... though I do know folks who do... life-leeching varies person from person) but I DO like, in part, Plato's proposed system in "The Republic."

In Plato's system, it is not benchmark after benchmark- you show your apptitude at various "subjects," ranging from math to english to "courage" and leadership (which I suppose can be guaged, if only subjectively) and THEN are put into a career/training path to become what you should become.

Plato's system's more totalitarian (2,000 years before it, didn't know its horrors) and has the STATE decide what you are best at, and put you to work there, as well as lie to you, saying that each person has within themselves an "inborn metal" that determines their status (gold, silver, bonze, iron, etc.) and future. Interestingly, though, it's not hereditary: Bill Gates' son could be a moron, be told he has iron, and placed into a mining job, whereas a kid from the slums might place high, "have gold," and go on to a great career a captain of industry or national leader.

I like Plato's idea (which Nietzsche employed some with his Ubermensch idea) with some modifications:

-YOU choose your path from your scores, not the state. Imagine that you are me- so highly ranked in English you receive the best scores wherever you go, people like your writing creative and critical, and you show a true apptitude in Englush, Drama, and Philosophy. History- pretty good, nothing historian material, but good. Science- big split, as biology is pretty good (I've always been sick plenty, so I learnt extra about it as a kid) but chemistry and physics are atrocious. Math is equally atrocious- I, myself, can barely add fractions together with great confidence; I can add, subtract, multiply, divide, figure out tax... and that's about it. So from that, you, at a certain age (say 10-12, when US Elementary school is usually done and these strengths become apparent) meet a "counselor" and review your options: open to you is every possible feild of study in English and the Humanities; a good few History classes, but not the most upper ones; Biology for science, unless you wish to remediate; and math you can just drop at this point, as nothing but remediation is open to you. Select your classes and...

-SELECT your "class." I think it perfectly true that in interaction with different people we will perform differently. Great scientific potential, but introverted? Choose to stay with those who mathc your scientific abilites and love of teh subject AS WELL AS your temperment. Like me, very outgoing, very extroverted, with a bit of inner anger and even cruelty at times? Pick to hang out withthose who not only mathc your love of Shakespeare, but can help calm your anger,or exercise it if so your wish (my friends can help me see that bright side of human nature I'm so often cynical about... the reason they are my friends, more like family, actually, at this point.) And you do NOT have to put goldfish with goldfish here- if you are extroverted but want t hang out with introverts because it calms you or just helps you- go ahead. Pick your classmates, and greater success, I believe, will follow.

-The option to RE-TEST and CHANGE PATHS. We change. We grow. At 12 I was great at English and the Humanities, and still would've pursued them... but my number one goal was to become an attorney. Four years later, after I realized how much I loved English/Theatre/Philosophy and the people I knew through it all, I wanted (still do, now in college) to be a writer/director instead (which is what people have always told my I should be, in any case.) So allow for that change. Allow for a re-test in the teen years if so desired, and, if qualified, allow for "Path-switching" at any time.



So I say leave education less in the hands of the US government, and more in the hands of the teachers, the counselors- and the students.

Just children- and yet you may be surprised at the wisdom they can display given the chance to do so...

obiwanobiwan, I posted it in the username story thread.

@ obiwan, I've had the exact same plan in my head for a while, now. I like how you fleshed it out a lot more than I ever would, though. Problems with the system: what if you want to do something that you aren't qualified for? Or if you're really smart, but horrible on tests?

@obiwanobiwan - with all the misspellings in that post (starting with Englush?), one wonders how your feel you have such a mastery of the communicative skills... Just picking on you, dude! :-)

I'm gonna have to disagree with you completely here. The purpose of school before college is to give you a general understanding of the world. Under your system, there would be plenty of people who wouldn't take certain subjects, which might work if we didn't live in a Democratic society, but would cause problems as it is. History is especially important for people to understand, so that they can understand what actions have been tried by governments and what the results were. Do you want people who have no understanding of science deciding what should be funded?

Furthermore, a very high percentage of college students change their major at some point, but if they'd been focusing on one subject for years before, it would be much more difficult to change to a different subject.

I fail to see how we could implement Plato's Republic without relying on the government to the point of totalitarian control, or why we would want to have such a system, or how it would be implemented.

Also, I note that you blame the government and No Child Left Behind, but while that was a horrible piece of legislation, it certainly isn't the cause, unless our schools were doing better than everyone else before it was implemented and I somehow missed it.

The problem isn't the government, it's society. America wasn't colonized by scientists and intellectuals. We don't have historical or current figures to inspire the pursuit of knowledge and the desire to understand the world.

If you want to learn, you'll learn, even if you don't have great teachers or a great system. If you don't want to learn, then you'll memorize everything, take a test, and forget it, no matter how well its taught. There are great teachers, but if you don't care you won't learn from them.

Of course, this is all based on personal experience, and I'm not very familiar with how foreign schools operate compared to American ones. We have a pretty bad educational system, but I think its more of a symptom than a cause.

Issues raised, to be adressed:

-"What if you want to do something that you aren't qualified for?" I honestly don't see that as much of a problem- I think it can be agreed that with a certain and undeniable amount of exceptions, a vast majority would prefer/do work in fields they are "good at." And even if you had a dental-drill voice like mine and wanted to be a singer, there's nothing stopping you- hiring is still based off talent. If you aren't "qualified" but want to try your hand in society, give it a try- but if you are trod in the dirt, then it really is no one's fault but your own.

-"What if you're terrible taking tests?" That's an intersting question, especially considering minds like Einstein are noted as having been terrible test takers- however, again, I don't see that great of a problem, because of the nature of Plato's tests. He doesn't (to my knowledge) specify how to test, and it is likely not penci-and-paper (at least not entirely.) His, or my, tests would not be so much about what you "know" (that can be acquired) but what can you "do" and how are you "like." To borrow a just-used example, suppose I am five years old. I can write good poetry (for a five-year old), am outgoing and generally considered to be precocious (although I myself as a child likely was more a pompous prick than precocious) and wish to be involved in musical theatre, say. But, as stated before, my voice could knock down a three-story building. I cannot sing lyrics- but I can write poetry... perhaps I can write lyrics/musicals. And so, that would be the system- natural talent, attitude, and preference. Again, I suggested this system start in what is now the middle-school years, around 12. That will allow the Elementary school basics to sink in, and what's more, by that point in most every child definite highs and lows in ability will begin to show. A child can try for any class, any path- but, to use myself again, I cannot add fractions, so suppose I wanted to take harder math classes. I would be advised against it, as my test results and abilities to this point have certainly shown math to be my weakness, whilst I have vast potential in English (REGARDLESS of typos, haha.) Still, if I'm keenon it I may try to enter the class, but should I fail, I will- as should be- be denied. I would be taking time and resources from (and this will sound harsh) more talented and desrving students (in tha particular field, anyway.) In this way, the paths may be better developed and taught- no longer will huge class sizes and limited materials be an issue, as those students who (again, harsh) are undeserving and unsuited to the materials will not be using them up. And my system does allow for re-tests, in case of a bad day or changed tastes, so yes... but again, the "ability" test. Einstein truly could not pass a test- but he could certainly work on his projects individually... so, survey his projects, his natural portfolio of work, and that's his "test." Testing is not ruled by absolutes, by rights and wrongs and A, B, C, or D- it is subjective in my system, and so even if old Albert had an off project but the teacher/counselor could see that inner genius, his potential, then he'd get his classes. And even if not, he could try his hand in society- and we all know how well Einstein, when setting out his ideas in the real world, fared... I think he would do fine in this system.

-"This couldn't be done under a Democracy" I agree. Teaching, however, and this is the crux of it, is not, and should not be about democracy- that is what Plato railed against, what Nietzsche abhored, and what I am currently infuriated by. Teaching is about passing on knowledge, helping mankind to grow- and if mommies and daddies and little Jimmy or Suzie here or there must have feelings hurt because they want to be chemists yet continually set the lab into a mess as they do not understand acids and bases, then so be it, sorry. We CANNOT stifle growth just because not everyone is capable of it, or capable of growing how they wish (and I'm adressing the GOP and the Democrats here- both are at fault in this instance.)

-"I fail to see how we can implement Plato's Republic without totalitarian control" Yes- except we are NOT implementing his Republic. His Republic has, in bits and pieces, already been tried, knowlingly or not, in Sparta, Rome, Germany, and the USSR- all had noble plans, none worked out all too well. But PIECES of it, BITS of his Republic have done well, and are even necessary- and I believe, with alterations (again this is a modified version of his education system- I'm not assigning classes or instituting state-run nurseries) that this is a necessary part to the furtherment of humanity, and it can be established without a dictatorship. What holds us back is what we have gained from our culture's learned ideas via our education system- we have been taught to avoid failure, to memorize and regurgitate and not fail. We are NOT taught to strive to better our strengths and to succeed. Nietzsche in "Human, All Too Human" referred to those great in one or two areas and mediocre or subpar in others as "organs," and did not approve of them on the whole; he agreed with sharpening one's strengths, but cannot stand the idea of invalids in other areas. By the same token, he teaches that we must strive to develop the Ubermensch, which is good at EVERYTHING- but this, as he realizes, cannot be done whole-cloth. That's why he praises people like Caesar, Shakespeare, Goethe- Ubermensch-like in at least one area, and thus progress, a step towards the Ubermensch. As a society, how might this work is not entirely known- if everyone is Caesar, then where is his army? THAT's why I advocate "organs" far more than Nietzsche ever did- for a society. For a person in generaly it is best to, as Nietzsche says, strive to be great at everything. But for a society, well-trained and generally happy "organs" making up "systems" will make for, I believe, a utopian body of a nation for mankind.

-"The problem isn't government, it's society" Our government has impacted our society so much that is has blurred the line- where once Jefferson, and Locke before him, meant that all men are created equal and for that they should be afforded equal chances to succeed, we have now come to think that to mean all men are to be treated as special in every manner, thus killing the meaning of special, and that all men are created equal and therefore must be treated equal in every respect, regardless of the fact we are individuals, not plants.

-"If you want to learn, you'll learn" I don't disagree- but could you not learn better if you had the classmates you wanted, the the materials you needed, the attention you and your abilities deserved?

Could you clarify your position? I haven't actually read The Republic or anything by Nietzsche, and you seem to be drawing heavily from them. What are you saying should be done, and how should it be accomplished?

zuzak:

I just spent two hours typing a response- and one click and it's GONE. ughhh......

I cannot do it again, two hours of that, right now at 1am. Most of what I have to say is in what I've written- what, specificlally, do you not understand in my proposed system (or more accurately, my tweaking and meshing the systems of Nietzsche and Plato.)

I'm not sure how I can be more specific. However, rereading your posts, I think I might understand a bit better. You're basically saying that students should have more control over their situations and what they're taught, right?

You've mentioned it later, but it's important to note that Jefferson only meant that all men should be offered equal rights, not that they should all be treated as though they were the copies of each other.

I agree with you somewhat, and certainly believe that the educational system can and should be improved. However, I don't believe that everyone should strive to excel in only one field at the expense of general knowledge. I definitely think its important for a population to be well versed in general knowledge, especially with regard to logic and science.

My major criticism of schooling is that most students tend to treat school as something that has to be tolerated and passed, like some sort of hurdle that must be jumped in order to achieve success in life. Assignments and tests are given in an academic quarantine such that a students work has no value outside of the classroom. How many essays, short stories, computer programs, and science experiments have I gone through with none of them providing any benefit to the world outside the marks that should assure my success? At least in later secondary school, students should definitely be encouraged to write and conduct experiments as though they were looking to publish or code programs with the idea of selling them. I have no doubt in my mind that many high school students could contribute to science and literature, and some of the more enterprising ones certainly do! A student's "job" shouldn't just to be to secure good marks, but to actually contribute and improve the world and themselves. I feel like a lot of the pointlessness I felt in school was because I felt my work had no value outside of the scholastic vacuum.

School sometimes seems like a giant nursery to keep children occupied while their parents work and not actually designed to prepare people for the world. I definitely think that many subjects could be taught differently (math!) and more effectively. At the very least, I feel that if high school is designed to give the average graduate a healthy platform of general knowledge, more practical knowledge should be taught. For example, the apex of high school math is calculus, and almost all math before this is just prepping for this moment... but many high school graduates will never use calculus after high school, let alone on some practical day to day basis. The real apex of high school math should be probability and statistics, because if there's anything the average person is bad at doing it's estimating odds and probabilities of outcomes and the meaning of statistics. But these are skills that are very much useful in day to day life and decision making. People take pills everyday under the impression that they are now 15% less likely to get a cancer in the relative sense, not realizing that in the absolute sense they are improving their chances from 0.00045% to 0.0003825%, which would likely not offset the cost in terms of dollars and time spent taking the pill as well as the side effects caused by it. Both doctors and patients overestimate the value of a positive mammogram result in detecting breast cancer because they don't understand Bayesian theory. If 1% of women at some age has breast cancer, 80% of women with breast cancer get positive mammogram results, and 9% of women without breast cancer also get positive mammogram results, what are your odds of having breast cancer if you get a positive mammogram result? Hint: It's not 80%

But in support of your point I also don't think I was really challenged. As a result in middle school I spent all my class time reading, to the point where my teachers held an intervention for me against reading! In high school, I just stayed up late pursuing my own interests and slept in while missing class unless it was necessary for me to be there. It felt like a burden to have to scrape together the marks to please my parents and get into a good university. I've always been a good test-taker so this was easier for me, but it felt so vacuous.

However, I'm very much with zuzak (sorry if I'm misrepresenting you) because I think that in the end education depends more upon the student than the teacher or the educational system. Some students will stare blankly when being "taught" and much prefer to spend on other things, and I have no problem with this because not everybody has an academically oriented curiousity. Other students will break free and start playing with chemistry sets while in middle school and start selling bits of software in high school no matter what sort of education system is imposed.

In addition I believe that the idea that people all have some sort of talent is often used to justify a deficiency in another area as though it's strange for someone to be good at writing, singing, and mathematics. I always hear smart people say that they're hopeless at math and that they'll stick to political science and writing brilliant essays. While its true that these skills employ different areas of the brain, I think that a lot of this effect is simply because people are convinced that they are bad at math, and not actually because they can't do it. There aren't really any academic subjects that I know of that I do not think I could grasp if I devoted my time and effort toward it, though things like singing and drawing are completely beyond me. With many of my more intelligent friends who claim to be hopeless with subjects like math and physics I feel that they've just already given up and if they'd approach the subject with an open mind they'd find that it's not so difficult.

Wow, my post is all over the place. Not really meant as an argument in either direction, just a scattered list of my personal observations of the educational experience, with much insight borrowed from others.