@Tolstoy: if you think someone would l do better in life without the benefit of education, show us how it's done.

I think all Tolstoy's trying to say is that too often our education system (particularly teachers teaching what they don't know) forces inane dribble down the throats of the students. A presentation on education in the 30s doesn't really teach the student anything. It doesn't allow him to understand the past and how it affects the future, which is what history class ought to be about. Instead, it forces him to research something of no relevance to him or anyone not writing their thesis on the subject.

Sometimes you have to do things you don't like doing, but you ought to get something out of them that improves either your education or character or postition. This project sounds like a waste of time and this teacher sounds like a controlling cretin.

I found the website were my teacher dug up this project she honestly copy pasted the rubric and criteria

Teachers are often renown for practising that which they so zealously oppose: plagiarism.

Yup

+1 Invictus

I hate learning about glaciers in the first chapter of every histroy book. I have to learn all my history outside of class.

Sorry, but I just can’t see what it is about this particular topic that identifies it as a “waste of time” or the teacher as a “cretin” – especially when Denis has only provided a very brief description of the assignment, and it’s role in the larger context of the course.
Clearly you see some value in history, but not in this particular topic. Do you have a list of topics that are acceptable to you? How did you create this list? What was the basis for your selection? Or if you don’t have such a list, how did you decide that this particular topic is unworthy?

You say that this topic does not help him to understand the past, but really, that’s just your judgment call. What you are calling for is a very constricted view of history, presumably emphasizing political, military and constitutional themes. Sure that can help understand a lot of things that are relevant to today, but it also leaves a lot of dark corners.

Previous post was in response to Invictus.

Plastic Hussar,

I think Mark Twain said it best: one should never let their schooling get in the way of their education. Nor should the two be confused.

Going to school for 13 or 17 years (or 18.5, in my case) doesn't guarantee a good education. All it gets you for certain is a piece of paper that says you showed up and satisfied your teachers. Getting a good education in a school requires more than just showing up and going through the motions. You need good teachers who know what they're talking about and worthwhile subject matter. You sound like you're an educator of some sort, so I'm sure you've heard the old joke about the first question prospective history teachers are asked at job interviews ("What sports can you coach?" - all 8 history teachers at my high school coached one or another of the school's sports teams). Schooling by know-nothings working off PC-obsessed textbooks that seem to deliberately avoid the significant details of history is not a beneficial education. It's a waste of time and money, and the frustrations expressed by people here are entirely justified. Denis seems like a sharp kid, and I think he could get a better education at this level with a library card than wasting his time with this crap - I know I did.

Dominic-
I would argue that using someone else's method to teach a class is much different than a student turning in an essay that he did not write, and expects to receive a grade based on that work.

+1 Mark Twain

Tolstoy,

I agree that going to school doesn’t guarantee a good education. But I do feel that not participating in the experience will guarantee a bad one.

The tone of the responses – including yours – to this particular assignment smelled of anti-intellectualism. I am not trying to argue that Denis has a good teacher. I am simply saying that nothing in evidence shows him or her to be a bad one.

The particular topic mentioned is not a PC one either. It sounds like the teacher was assigning a range of topics to help students understand the 1930s. Arguably, the rise of progressive education is an important theme for that period, and indeed helps us to understand the later history of education, weaving a perceivable story through the experiments of the 1960s, the reactions of the 1990s, and even the triumph of PC we see today.

You mention your 18.5 years of schooling – does that put you in grad school? If so, in what discipline?

If students expecting to be graded based on plagiarized work is wrong, then why the hell do teachers who plagiarize lesson plans and can't teach without a book in hand deserve raises?

I live in a red state and the teachers here still make about as much from the get-go as a brand-spanking-new military officer. What's good for the goose is good for the gander - if they can't even teach from their own knowledge, then why should they get paid more than people who are risking their lives for us, especially when plagiarism is considered one of the biggest no-nos in our education system?

Oh, and fyi...the floggings will continue until morale improves... ;)

Maybe a teacher who has been assigning the same project for years could give a litte more help with topics all she sugested for this was John Dewey and Progressive! nine pages of reaserch on that! you do that and tell me its easy.

Oh and on te subject of retarded teachers who can't teach without a book here we go. the teacher who assigned this project thought WW2 started in 1936. she does't know what USSR stands for. and i could go on and on but I won't. What makes me really mad is that i get stuck with education in the thirtes when much less capable people get Forign Policy, and Econamy. I bet you a person doesn't include the Crash of 29 in his paper about econamy because it was in 1929!!

the war in east asia did start in 1936, but at the time it was more of a regional conflict between Naitonalist China and Imperial Japan.

but when Japan allied itself with Nazi Germany, and Most of Europe declared war on Germany, that made the conflict more or less global. (Though that historical definition is probably very Euro-centric. However the British empire did span most of the world at that point, including India and Hong Kong - which neighbour China - and Australia/Canada who would compete with Japan for dominance over the Pacific - never-the-less, during 1939 the war was mostly confined to continental Europe and Mainland China)

oh, sorry, second sino-japanese war started in '37...

Italy did some invading in '36 in africa.

Well that's great she was alking about the war on Germany in this case but thanks for the info orathiac

No specifics have been provided to justify your comments Invictus.

I don't need to justify it. That's what I experienced in school. I'm giving my opinion of my own experiences. I'm sure other people feel the same way.

You must have been out of high school for a long time not to think most of the stuff they teach is nonsense. The only classes I learned anything in were my AP classes or from the rare teacher who was actually knowledgeable about the material.

I think i acctually learned to my full potential under only one teachers

I'll start a new thread for this debate

I believe we are the same age Invictus. I get what you are saying I guess. I found school easy enough to coast through so I didn't develop good work habits. But its possible our systems are different. We have a split at high school that seperates the classes into "applied" and "academic" which is code for stupid and not stupid.

Just to make clear why I brought that up, its that without the lower students classes moved along better, although not as well as ap I imagine.