Hi! This is my first post. I felt this would be the best place for it. I wanted to post in another thread when I first found this site but it was archived. :bugeye: So, I think the main problem with society today is that people are so use to being guided through life: as to what to do or what not too, along with what to expect, that they (being kids or people) are no longer capable of thinking for themselves. In a lower grade educational system and even higher, no one teaches the importance of education. Kids go through math class never knowing why any of it is important. Why it matters or how it will benefit them after they graduate. These are serious problems. So why does education run so rampant with what people should know oppose to why they should know it?
In early educational schooling they teach you things that you should understand so that you can advance in the educational system to graduate. By then you should be able to choose a college to attend that you will then learn what you want to learn about a job that you would like to work at. Your first 12 years of education is meant to give you the basic understanding of how things work not why because that comes in college. However many times you can also understand why if you want to but its up to you do find things out by researching things on your own and asking questions about what you do not understand. So you can learn both, what and why, if you want to.
I think a problem with society is that many people, while capable of thinking for themselves, are often content not to do worry too much about things that don't impact them directly and obviously. That is, many people are fairly superficial. They care mainly about themselves and those close to them, and are content to live in a rather small bubble where they take many things for granted. One problem is that students often compartmentalise their education. There's the "maths world" of the classroom, and the "real world" of their lives, and they don't necessarily connect the two in any meaningful way. And that can apply to any subject, not just maths. History, for example, repeats over and over because people don't learn the lessons of the past. They don't see the relevance of history to their "real world" lives. The same goes for the general apathy about politics. Also, education is often valued only for it's economic promise. Get an education and you'll earn big bucks. Could it be that education is valuable for some other reason?
+1 Another thing to add, subjects like History and Philosophy are not taught well enough in most schools for any kid to ever care about what happened a hundred years ago. Ive never heard of a standardized history test.
There is far more to this problem than the structure of the education system (which, btw is pretty good, though underfunded and overburdened.). It's no use telling a child why something that doesn't interest him now will be valuable in a "later" he can't imagine: you have to grab his interest, right now. Good teachers can do that, if we let them. One thing that's very badly wrong with the society is the power of money. Everything is commercialized. Knowledge is a commodity. Children are a commodity. If a commodity (the graduate) either is priced higher than a competing product (7-year-old slave in a Mumbai slum) or doesn't meet the requirement of the consumer (employers), it's unsalable. So education must be constantly adjusted to create a salable product, which is very difficult to do when the assembly process is 12-20 years and the market cycle is 4-5 years. Another recent phenomenon is the anti-intellectual climate of USian (and to a lesser extent, Canadian) culture. It's illustrated most clearly in popular entertainment and advertising: the Einstein cartoons, the nerd character as butt of cruel jokes, the misapplication of relatively simple words by news announcers, the baby-level presentation of science programs on Discovery, even the pictures in a furniture ad, where bookshelves are full of bibelots, not biblia. Americans would never vote for the smarter candidate, unless he's taller, has prettier hair, and hides his intelligence well. A third problem is, of course, that no matter how much they study or how hard they try, only about 10% of the graduates will ever get jobs that enable them to repay their student loans. Did i mention money-culture? Capital is free to go where it wants; people are not.
I like this thread, that the thread concerns itself with education. Jeeves, I enjoyed reading your writing. **************************************** I think education and textbooks are taking a churn, heaha many subjects like flavors of ice cream. I do think todays younger people are sort of bridging on in a clippership sort of way. What I intend by the previous sentence is that gist has become an attractive playground. Here gist relative to people being more interested in clipping let's say editing for greater exact truths. Hence a more proficient will for the wide range of educational subjects to be.. I will just say more fine tuned in right of basic truths.
One of the problems with modern society, that makes education suffer, is the deliberate misunderstanding of the term equality. One traditional definition is we all get to play by the same rules. There will be no rules that prevent or favor one group over another. But the liberal definition modified the term equality into meaning equal results, requiring more than one set of rules; calls inequality, equality. Quota systems makes two or more sets of rules with the hope the we can achieve equal results; this is the basis of the liberal dual standard. The problem with this is the needed dumb down of education, since equal results means dumbing down the top end, so the bottom can appear to rise. Let me give an analogy. If you look at professional sports, like the NBA, the rules are the same for all. If you are good enough and work hard enough, no matter who you are, you will be drafted and become part of one of these teams. Any child can try and imagine playing in the pros. This is equality in terms of the rules since the path is for anyone. But since not everyone is 7 foot tall and can run, jump and shoot, only the best will rise above; like evolution. Say we wanted to make the NBA based on the liberal concept of equal results for all. This seems nice, since it will allow women, children and old people to play in the NBA. To make this possible, you will need to set up quotas and many different sets of rules, some of which will need to dumb down the best players so they can't dominate, and show unequal results due to their natural ability. Others, like the 80 years old ladies, will need to get easier rules, so they can appear to be the same in terms of scoring results. The educational system needed to make this form of basketball possible can't be rational or some people will have the skills that can will point out the lack of equality in terms of rules. To make this seem to work you need to appeal to emotions, instead of reason. It is more like telling a women she looks skinny in her dress even though she is not skinny. It is not about reality, but but illusions to create nice feelings. The NBA will never be the same again as it falls from its golden years of equality in terms of rules to equality in terms of results; Granny scores 60 points. This will be taught as being the same as when the players of ofl did the same thing. That is the new education.
We can refine the question a bit, maybe, using the posts here: what happened to the education of this ^^ poster? Why doesn't he know what words he uses, such as "liberal" and "quota", mean? From whence the hit and miss grammar, the inability to keep an illustrative analogy on track and lined up, the eventual abandonment of argument itself for simile and assertion, the whole ignorant mess? Surely no one - that poster or anyone else - believes that any major share of the problems with the inner city black schools in the US (ground zero of our "education" problem) is the result of liberal quotas keeping the bright and hardworking and eager mass of high performing students from achieving too much and making the lesser students look bad?
Actually, the imagining might be the same, but the "path" varies quite a lot. I think the idea behind affirmative action is to make the path at least a similar length - though some are still all uphill and lacking in refreshment stations.
Actually the educational system , is a system that is BORING The CBC had a documentary on Boredom and a majority found high school boring You take young childern full of energy and ask them to be quiet , drains them of there lifes energy As well new discoveries and theories are not exammined or brought in to stimulate them Education should be an open door on subject and age , come and go as they please To add it seems that students should be standing at their desks rather than sitting because sitting makes students drowsy whereas standing doesn't induce drowsyness
I saw that film. It was interesting - but didn't cover all aspects of education. In fact, a number of different teaching styles have been tried in Canadian (and other) schools to combat the boredom factor. Children sat in a circle on the floor, or moved around the room at will, or had frequent breaks for exercise, or worked in pairs and small groups instead of alone. They've varied the length of time kids have to pay attention, switch activities, hold classes outdoors. All kinds of different methods work well for some students; none work equally well for all students. Teachers are mostly quite willing and able to be creative in the classroom and adjust to every student's style - but what they're allowed to do is limited. Two problems in the current North American schools: 1. Money and 2. Money. 1. The ratio of teachers to students is wrong: more small classes at each grade level would make it possible to put kids together who have the same learning style, and to experiment more. The school buildings are designed to an industrial standard - nice enough, but rigid. Hamlets and villages have lost their local school and children are having to commute to larger centers, isolated from familiar territory, while city schools are far too large and anonymous. Extracurricular activities, arts, music, ethnic and creative subjects have been stripped away; all the swimming pools closed. 2. The objective of education is to get a job, not to explore one's world and abilities. Children are being trained to be desirable employees, (not good citizens or happy people) so schooling has to endow them with maximum capacity for boredom and the acceptance of directions that make no sense.
I see But what hasn't been tried is allowing these childern to explore their own interests So you have a school that is open everyday , with teachers of course but the childern chosing which subject they want on that day or days With up to date information on any particular subject
