So, what is it with the US education system?

[TheTaco007]

It's not the school's fault. It's the student's for being idiots. I'm in school myself, and I often find myself wanting to slam my head into the desk because it's so obvious that the teachers have useful things to teach us, but the students are so damn slow that they can't ever get past the basics. It drives me insane that I spend the 75% of my time at school waiting for the other students to finish their work, cause I'm already done and ready to move on.

 

[Scarecrow]

Honestly I do not think that the school system is that bad. They give us the tools to try and find knowledge. Blaming a bad school system for America being stupid does not do the schools justice. It is with peoples ignorant mindset that school is worthless.

Over 60% of Us high school students can't find England on the map. The US just has bad teaching methodes.

 

[MONSTERheart]

As someone who attends one of the top high schools in the nation, it might seem odd that I find our education system horribly flawed. I would right a long essay about this, but I'll cut it short: The No Child Left Behind policy makes it so that the speed at which you learn is only as fast as the weakest link. In other words, I am actually really pissed off that I have to waste months on end 'learning' something that I could figure out by reading a wikipedia article (looking at you, basic trig).

The sad thing is, it is so laughably easy to solve. How do you design a good educational system? Well, you ask the people your educating. Listen to how the students want to learn and fucking teach it like that. Ever notice how you seem to remember more in the classes with "cool" teachers? Yeah.

 

[Levitas1234]

north american high school is a joke

smart kids learn to be under achievers and dumb kids become under achievers later on.

That is how our education system works.

 

[mezmerizer02]

I went to a public school a county (and for me it was only a city) away from Gary, Indiana. I seem to recall receiving some of the best education there. I was an excelled student in both math and English. I went on to Purdue University to double major in both Civil Engineering and Pre-Med, which I am now attending a Physician Assistant school. I really do believe it is how the student views the knowledge they are gaining in the classroom. If you do not wish to aquire the knolwedge and try to understand it's full power, then you will surely add to the long line of under-educated fodder that makes up this world. Which is fine by me because someone has to bag my groceries.

 

[The Geek Lord]

snip

I'm very tired of people slamming the US educational system. We drive the world economy, we're the richest country in the world, we won. Period. Now as a student in the US I cant say how good "our" educational system is, but I do go to a very good private school, and we frequently have foreign royalties coming to attend here, this is one of the goddamn best schools in the world, and you say it sucks? Now it is a private school, and I know that the public schools are better, but my dad went to public school, and he can afford to send us to this $40k a year school, so you fucking tell me that you hate this system. I get seriously offended when people say that shit, because its not true. Dont blame the school for you not knowing this damn stuff, blame yourself.

Turn to mister enter/return key. He is the friend of the internet.

Now, I need to ask you something; what. Public schools are better than private schools? Really? And you get offended when people bash an education system that you're not a direct part of? Maybe you're just a lucky enough bastard to be sent to a good school, so why is it when people are apparently too poor to be sent to good schools it offends you when they bash the idiotic crap they're exposed to?

I have to go to a public school. And that's what I posted this topic based on. Public schools. I've heard of worse stories than mine. It is a school's job to teach me the things I need to know. To teach us, the students, things that we may need to know. Parents and guardians don't spend stupid amounts of money for their child to go pick their noses with cigarettes. They spend stupid amounts of money to make the child go to learn something.

If I attend a school, and I don't know something that the school was supposed to teach me, it's the school's fault for failing to do it's job and teach me, not my fault for not going to some idiotically expensive private school.

 

[webchameleon]

(Sorry, the program kept freezing and the computer took forever to acknowledge my keystrokes. I started typing this right away, though.)

I think you took a beautifully motivational poem and cynically dismissed it. Do all Euro's have so little confidence in individual will? The last two paragraphs blew me away. His mom said the schools were "too competitive", so she sent him to Britain??? How is that a GOOD thing for the British school system? And what does it say about anyone who finds their school "too competative" because of meaningless student politics of popularity?
And the words you chose: "general lack of a collaborative atmosphere"; "American society as a whole"

Before I address this, please understand that the paragraph after the video was not intended to be associated with the rest of the post. Also, don't be presumptuous about my 'individual will'. I'm aiming for Oxford PPE. I can't think of many things that require as much individual will as that.

Don't get irritated just yet. I'm talking about how the rest of the world sees the individual will of anyone to overcome adversity. At least 1/2 of Americans believe--sincerely believe--that give enough liberty, individuals can solve any problem either by themselves or with the help of their local communities (i.e. friends, family, neighbors, fellow employees, etc.). I'm assuming based on what you said after you quoted the poem that we should all dismiss it completely because some people just can't make it.

post="18.218872.7371452"]Anyway. I'll address on a per-question-mark basis:
1. No, we don't, we just don't see the need for competition on the path to self-fulfilment. Well, I don't, at least.

You've misinterpreted my question. See above.

2. Yes, she did.

You don't say?

3. He was a good student while he was here, so I guess it was a good thing for us. What are you getting at, exactly?

I'll let you answer that and comment on what you find:

4. Early schooling has a huge influence on your personality. The environment in school, like the environment at home, prepares you for later life.

If the environment is harsh- competitive, masculine, punitive- you will grow up prepared for a harsh life. You will be more aggressive, competitive, better at dealing with conflict, and so on. You will generally view other people as untrustworthy and your competitive enemy.

If the environment is nurturing- collaborative, feminine, reforming- you will grow up prepared for an easy life. You will be more diplomatic, collaborative, a better team player, but worse at dealing with direct conflict, and less independent. You will generally view others as benign.

That's a pretty impressive analysis. You kind of poisoned the well in that first scenario (if that is the exact fallacy?where?s my Logic notes?), by polarizing two subjective views of Western (?Harsh?) and European (?Nurturing?) school environments. I don?t understand why you have to characterize the former so overwhelmingly negatively and the latter so overwhelmingly positively. It must be an East/West thing, because while I?m sure you thought the analysis unbiased and favor the latter (your subconscious, however?), I find the latter description to represent a flaccid upbringing and a denial of personal development.

I?d call this a conflict of vision. In truth, your first description is a far-cry from the US public school system, but much like a boot camp. When people like me (Libertarians/Conservatives) say ?competitive? with regard to schools, we don?t actually mean competition between students (not to imply we think that?s usually a bad thing). We mean competition between schools for students. The best schools aren?t the ones that march students down the field and make them shout their times-tables in unison. They?re the ones that have a financial interest in improving their curriculum, instead of sucking up tax money we have to pay them at the threat of prison.

The USA is generally a harsher environment than Europe, as there is more competition, less stability in life financially (Job security, insurance etc...) and physiologically(Health insurance fickleness). Prisons focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. There is less of a community-provided safety net should you fall on hard times. You work longer hours. There is a shorter waiting period when you are fired. I think the schooling system reflects this. Do you agree?

I?ve never been to Europe.
*I know that since that new health plan was passed (the one that was supposed to better emulate the UK plan), my insurance rates have gone up twice and a lot of businesses have either stopped expanding or imploded.
*I know Charles Mansion is still alive and as crazy as the day we took him in.
*I know we have something called ?Social Security?, but Congress dipped into it every time another social program came about, and there?s no more money left for my generation, no matter how much we pay into it.
*I know people who thank god for every extra hour they can get of overtime?I?m one of them (but I don?t thank god).
*I know that general education has been dumbed-down for years to accommodate different cultures and disabilities (read: Less learning about American societal foundations and more time hearing about a coastal entrepreneur named Shelly).
*I know I got the best marks of anyone in grade school in Math, Science, Language, and Art?but was threatened with being held back repeatedly for low Citizenship.

American society is harsh. And yes, the school system definitely reflects it.

 

[webchameleon]

It's true, actually. America is an incredibly intolerant, racist place. Did you know we have an entire political party dedicated to perpetuating class warfare and racial tensions? If you don't think exactly the same way the Party does, it tries to blacklist you from your ethnic community. It's scary shit.

Read the above text. Yes I know it is long, but seriously read it and think about it. It should answer much of your misgivings.

Dude, I *live* here. I've taken more history courses than my college counselor knew what to do with. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. The Democrat Party has had a foundation in racism and class-warfare from the beginning. Getting swallowed by the Marxists was the best thing that ever happened to it. They can much more easily pass hate off as love now than they could in the mid-20th century.

you're getting the new Democratic Party mixde up with the pre-Civil Rights Democrats. The Old Democratic party was, indeed, a white-supremacist party,mainly focused in the southern United States. After FDR and the great depression though, the Democratic Party became the party of the working class, many of whom were African American. It was at this point where the Republicans and Democrats had a re-alignment and the Republicans became the party of the Economic elite and (for a time) white supremacy. The Democrats, not the Republicans, passed civil rights legislation. So, if you want to be technical, the current Republicans are resemble pre-FDR Democrats than Modern Democrats do.

Wrong. The 1957 Civil Rights Act was passed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Also, Democrats fought against women?s suffrage from the beginning, all the while Republicans were supporting it. Republicans had speakers from the Feminist Movement at its conventions as guests of honor multiple times (see this link for details):

Democrats Defeat Voting Rights Amendment
Republican Senator A. A. Sargent of California pioneered the 19th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution in 1878. Encouraged by Susan B. Anthony, Sargent?s amendment was also called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. Unfortunately, a Democrat controlled senate defeated the passage of the amendment four times.
Republican-Controlled Congress Finally Passes Suffrage for Women
Only after the Republicans won control of congress in 1919 did the Equal Suffrage Amendment pass. It found favor in the House of Representatives in May and then passed the Senate in June.
As the 19th Amendment was circulating for ratification, the states with Republican legislatures passed the amendment. Thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. Twenty-six states had Republican legislatures and easily ratified the Amendment. Nine states voted against its ratification?eight of those states had Democratic legislatures.

As I said, race and social-status has always been the foundation of the Democrat Party to stay in power. The only thing that?s changed is that it re-focused its sights on a more easily exploitable subject (more on this in my next post; I don?t want to overwhelm you) and convinced its former victims that Republicans want to hurt them because they're the wrong color.

Also, why does everyone assossiate the Democrats and Marxists? Yes, both are left-leaning groups, but the Democratic party is more centrist than most would like to think. Several European countries have stated that Americas' "Liberal" party (Democrats) would equate more to their own "Conservative" party. What American Liberals want is an economic system similar to European socialism (so far as I understand it anyway)to allow anyone to get medical treatment and other nesessities without jepordizing their financial security (or making their situation any worse.)

Because all their conventions, all their affiliates, and all the political diatribes of those who represent them are of the same theme: Class Struggle. They always claim that there are Big Corporations trying to steal the Little Guy?s money, or Rich People not ?Paying Their Fair Share?, or white people waiting to hurt minorities, and this is always the basis for that party?s staying in power. They make their constituents focus their hatred on groups of people based on their class. Instead of basing their staying in power on preserving/promoting Liberty and Equality of Opportunity, the Democrat party tries to champion Equality-of-Outcome through special rules and regulations for some (but not others). Where others say our rights are universal and exist in spite of the government, more and more spokesmen of the Democrat Party claim that all needs are rights, even if others provide the services that satisfy them. When non-constituents say ?no?, or ?that?s Unconstitutional?, Democrats say they?re in the Big Corporations? pocket, or that they?re racists, or ?Uncle Toms?. Then in 2008, we elected a Democrat president who has appointed several self-described Marxists to positions of power, including one who called Mao Zedong (Chairman Mao, the Chinese Stalin) one of her favorite philosophers (his face was on one of the Whitehouse Christmas tree ornaments last year). He was the disciple of a racist, Marxist preacher for 20 years but didn?t know it until the shit hit the fan on national television a second time. He was asked by a New York Times Journalist?one of the most liberal newspapers in the States?if he was a Socialist, and he laughed and stuttered. Meanwhile, the Democrat base asks, ?What controversy??.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Danny Ocean]

Don't get irritated just yet. I'm talking about how the rest of the world sees the individual will of anyone to overcome adversity. At least 1/2 of Americans believe--sincerely believe--that give enough liberty, individuals can solve any problem either by themselves or with the help of their local communities (i.e. friends, family, neighbors, fellow employees, etc.). I'm assuming based on what you said after you quoted the poem that we should all dismiss it completely because some people just can't make it.

Of course things are not as black and white as I might have worded them to be. It is not the case that Europe crushes individualism we just take an alternate route to achieving it. Methinks that major responsibility is relieved (rather than imbued due to lack of state handling of certain things), giving you more free time to pursue your interests and hobbies or overcome the 'problems' you mention. It seems to work pretty well.

That's a pretty impressive analysis. You kind of poisoned the well in that first scenario, by polarizing two subjective views of Western ("Harsh") and European (?Nurturing?) school environments. I don't understand why you have to characterize the former so overwhelmingly negatively and the latter so overwhelmingly positively. It must be an East/West thing, because while I'm sure you thought the analysis unbiased and favor the latter (your subconscious, however?), I find the latter description to represent a flaccid upbringing and a denial of personal development.

It's not my own. It's from a book I read [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Society-Forgot-Another-Instead/dp/1847375715] on psychology.

The views are polarised precisely because they represent two extremes. Of course it is not so black and white and there is extreme variation within each area. I recognise this. All I claim is that the US tends towards a harsher atmosphere and lifestyle while the EU is more nurturing. Which is something you agree with in the end anyway. Neither one is worded specifically to make it sound worse or better, I just list the characteristics associated with each kind of upbringing, off the top of my head. It just so happens that prevailing moral views place the descriptives of the latter on a higher level than those of the former.

Although the latter has been the way I have been brought up, and it's worked tremendously well for me, so perhaps I am biased. Doesn't really matter. The attributes of a harsh upbringing are appropriate for a harsh environment.

I'd call this a conflict of vision. In truth, your first description is a far-cry from the US public school system, but much like a boot camp. When people like me (Libertarians/Conservatives) say "competitive" with regard to schools, we don't actually mean competition between students (not to imply we think that's usually a bad thing). We mean competition between schools for students. The best schools aren't the ones that march students down the field and make them shout their times-tables in unison. They're the ones that have a financial interest in improving their curriculum, instead of sucking up tax money we have to pay them at the threat of prison.

The problem with having competition between schools for students is that you propagate the class divide. It does mean some schools are truly stellar, though. The problem (Which we have in the UK) with having competition between students for schools is that a student might not be placed in an appropriate school (Distance-wise and such.). The upshot is that everyone has equal opportunity to an education.

The view here is that the best schools are not those that march their students down to the field and make them shout times-tables in unison. They're the ones that have an emotional and moral interest in improving their students, instead of merely processing them. When you remove money from the motivational spectrum, you leave only those who really want to do what they are doing for moral reasons, not just financial ones. Example being that trial of paying for blood donations I've seen referenced a few times.

I've never been to Europe.
*I know that since that new health plan was passed (the one that was supposed to better emulate the UK plan), my insurance rates have gone up twice and a lot of businesses have either stopped expanding or imploded.
[sub]Your health plan doesn't really emulate the UK system. As far as I know it simply obligates coverage via the expensive private sector. There are still no state hospitals or anything like that. What I know is that the UK health system really, really works well. In some ways not as good as yours (Prostrate cancer, for example), but generally speaking it is as good as it, even better in some areas, and is vastly, hugely, massively cheaper.[/sub]
*I know Charles Mansion is still alive and as crazy as the day we took him in.
[sub]Is this a cherry picked example of someone who will never be reformed?[/sub]
*I know we have something called ?Social Security?, but Congress dipped into it every time another social program came about, and there?s no more money left for my generation, no matter how much we pay into it.
[sub]Explain? I don't geddit.[/sub]
*I know people who thank god for every extra hour they can get of overtime?I?m one of them (but I don?t thank god).
[sub]Why? Because you like to work or because you have to to survive?[/sub]
*I know that general education has been dumbed-down for years to accommodate different cultures and disabilities (read: Less learning about American societal foundations and more time hearing about a coastal entrepreneur named Shelly).
[sub]Huh? This sounds like it has a funny story behind it. Explain?[/sub]
*I know I got the best marks of anyone in grade school in Math, Science, Language, and Art?but was threatened with being held back repeatedly for low Citizenship.
[sub]Shame, for someone who seems to know so much about their chosen political ideologies. Do they even teach that in citizenship or is it more like PS(H)E is over here?[/sub]

American society is harsh. And yes, the school system definitely reflects it.

And deep down I think that's the fundamental problem with the US way [sup][sup](Blah blah who am I to judge blah blah. Please humour me.)[/sup][/sup] You have a harsh, status-centric, unequal society when you really have enough money not to have one. The presupposition being that a harsh, status-centric, unequal society is bad. Although given the rates of overtime, homicides, incarceration, prison sentences, mental problems, and poor health, I can be forgiven for thinking that the US way isn't really beneficial for the people that support it, except for those at the top.

 

[Freeze_L]

i love having gone to a private school for just what you said. EVERYONE in my school is way ahead of where public school kids are. When i go to college i will test out of almost all 1st and second year classes i can, because I ALREADY COVERED THE MATERIAL. Tests are not on what the teachers said, but on the chapter, and the teacher only talks about what is important, we do not have time to cover the whole book in class! We learn what we have to learn and you are expected to work outside of class. You can fail in private schools but it is hard to do so because the teachers will help you, but unlike public schools they will not lower the standard for you. The real difference i think is that in a private school your are either there on scholarship or because your parents want you there, and you are there to learn and you are EXPECTED TO TRY. where as in public schools the only pepole who learn are those who want to learn. Also there are consequences in private schools, i remember having low grades and they told me they knew i knew this, and i was going to get A's and until i did i was going to be eating lunch by myself and not going out to play (this was in grade school, i am now a senior). There is also the idea that you are going to push yourself, and your are going to do the hard classes if you can because that is what will challenge you and you ARE going to try your hardest.

The real issue with public schools i think is that they do not expect anything from you other than being there. You get ALOT more resources in public schools then you do in private, because most private schools are dirt poor, yet private school students do better with less.

To illustrate the lack of money private schools have compared to public i will ask a question (Rhetorical of Course). Did you have air conditioning? Ever had a rat infestation, for 2 years? Where your computers dos based? Did your school ever have to decided between new textbooks or Air Conditioning? If you answered yes to those questions you are likely to have gone to a fancy private school with all of your rich friends (sarcasm), and you have an education that is higher than 3rd year college students by the time you are in 8th grade.

 

[Freeze_L]

Also, teachers often aren't held to a standard of accountability until they say/do something controversial, then they find their heads on pikes. So, education is played safe, and many teachers in many districts become disenchanted and aloof rather quickly from this fact. It also becomes far easier to pass someone on than to deal with the parents who won't accept that their child's poor performance is not the teacher's fault somehow.

The issue is everything is controversial now! You tell a kid that hitting some one is wrong and you phrase it the wrong way you can get in serious trouble. It is hard to explain why not to do something to a little kid with out telling them "would you like it if i did that to you?" and at that point there is a chance that there parent will get angry because "you threatened him" or because "thats a Christan phrasing, and i am an easily offended atheist". You teach a kid about Columbus and you can't tell them the children's story, or talk about him finding the new world, you have to be politically correct and tell them everything that happened, where as just saying the basics is what should be told to a child. No everything is too dangerous to talk about because it will offended someone, and this means you cant really lay the foundation of knowledge necessary to teach history math or science!

 

[JayDub147]

I agree with most of the comments on here; luckily, I was able to take classes at a nearby university during my high school years. I think if kids had the option to get straight into college without the burden of waiting for a high school diploma, many problems would be solved.

Of course, this would not be the right option for everyone, but I think it would certainly help with the "weak expectations" mentality infecting our societies.

 

[Hairetos]

The system isn't designed to help each student achieve; it's designed to make everybody move forward.

Naturally brilliant students will stay naturally brilliant through high school (regardless of the quality of their education) and score brilliantly on the SAT's and do brilliantly in college to become our *insert really important careers here*.

Fairly smart people will learn to put a little effort in, do fairly well on their SAT's, go to a pretty good college and get a pretty good job.

Average people will do average in high school, maybe go to an average public university or technical institute and get career training there.

The rest get common jobs (or the rare entrepreneur).

Fills all of the roles quite nicely, but doesn't really do much to make people attain their potential. The idea is "give them the basic knowledge, and leave the rest of their future to their natural intelligence". Sure, sounds good when you phrase it like that (maybe not), but consider all of the people who might have been so much more had they been taught a little differently, or been given more opportunities.

And for fuck's sake, my school just got its FIRST TWO AP classes last year and have added ONE this year. Inexcusable.

*Note, I'm not bagging on anybody and I'm sure some people don't fit this model, but I'd be willing to wager most people do.

 

[Eggsnham]

-Le Snippity-

Why does it suck? Why, it's simple.

I'll try to keep it simple at least.

First off, they treat you like prisoners day in and day out (seriously, minimum security prisoners have more rights than the average high school student).

Then, they pump ya' full of propaganda for your entire career. "Every substance that causes a change in the way you live life is bad for you" "Sex is bad for you" "X country is the best in the world".

Next, they cram all of us confused prisoners together in a small space for extended periods. This create an obvious side effect of social tension. Some people just don't get along, it's common logic.

After the school system spends money on ignoring this, they place massive importance on grades and tell you to ignore all things social. We're fucking kids, we don't know how to do that. Hell, I know plenty of adults that don't know how to do that. Human beings are social creatures, even in the most reserved, anti social recluse of a man, there is still that faint, small voice deep down in his sub-conscience saying: "Gee, it sure would be nice to have some company".

Next, the food sucks. It's not that relevant, but I had to mention it.

Then, after all of this is taken into account, you realize "Holy shit, I HAVE to go to this place. There is no choice." Not to mention the fact that parents are often unsympathetic (possible not trying to remember their own experiences with high school?) and there are very limited options in general.

This, my friend, is why the school system of the general world (not just the US school system) sucks.

I could go on for hours stating reasons why it sucks, but I already have a nice wall of text going anyways.

 

[Jodah]

Because most kids don't apply themselves. This leads to teachers either giving up or spending more time on the failures then they deserve. I've believed for a long time that children should be required to attend school until the fifth grade (to learn basic knowledge : Math, reading, writing, etc). After that it becomes optional.

Furthermore, if the kid is forced to go by their parents but does not apply themselves they get expelled. If they at least attempt to learn but fall behind they can get extra help. Basically, anyone who wants to learn can, those who do not want to learn can flip burgers for the rest of their lives.

 

[reiem531]

Creationists

 

[Harkwell]

"No child left behind"

Not even the ones that should be left behind. Parents don't want to learn that their kid is a complete moron, so they blame the schools for failing him, even though its the kid who's stupid.

This, this ruins our education's natural selection. Not everyone is smart and some people will have to be the bean counters. To quote Frank Fontain...

"All these poor schmucks. They come down here thinkin' they'll be Captians of Industry. They forget that someone has to clean the toilets..."

Plus most kids simply don't give a shit about education, so its less 100% of the education system's fault and more of a 50/50 where both the system and students are at fault.

Also true. I knew a lot of people from my graduation who passed high school easy but theres no way in hell they're going to make it through college with the same attitude.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

This is a big problem with nearly every school system, not just the US's.