The glorious British education
- Thread starter RyQ_TMC
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think you just met a few of the more retarded ones. They are everywhare but thankfully they are only in the minority in my college
It's just massively over-hyped. Honestly unless you have a naturally high IQ then the system is very unlikely to work for you. Public schools may be different but I went to state school so I wouldn't know.
At the moment the U.K. seems to be going though a bit of a bad patch: chav's, teenage pregnancy, etc. (I wasn't even referring to the depression either). The current generation don't seem to want to learn. I know there are a lot who do but there is also a lot that don't.
I have a lot of complaints about the system as a whole - like why in textiles (or whatever you want to call it) do you not learn how to sew on a button, sew up a rip or to patch jeans. And in D.T. (woodwork, tech, etc.) why don't you learn how to put up a shelf. Oh, and maths, why don't they teach basic accounting. I could go on but I feel my point is made - the education system is dreadful, nothing of any use/relevance to later life is taught and standards have been lowered to compensate for children not wanting to learn.
I don't know if its a lower standard of teacher or pupil or both but I hope that something changes soon.
At the moment the U.K. seems to be going though a bit of a bad patch: chav's, teenage pregnancy, etc. (I wasn't even referring to the depression either). The current generation don't seem to want to learn. I know there are a lot who do but there is also a lot that don't.
I have a lot of complaints about the system as a whole - like why in textiles (or whatever you want to call it) do you not learn how to sew on a button, sew up a rip or to patch jeans. And in D.T. (woodwork, tech, etc.) why don't you learn how to put up a shelf. Oh, and maths, why don't they teach basic accounting. I could go on but I feel my point is made - the education system is dreadful, nothing of any use/relevance to later life is taught and standards have been lowered to compensate for children not wanting to learn.
I don't know if its a lower standard of teacher or pupil or both but I hope that something changes soon.
I just believe that English schools and, from my very limited experience of American schools, centre around memorising facts and equations, rather than learning.
I knew someone who was considering taking A-Level in Geography and had the grades to do so. She could go on about the effects of coastal erosion, how mountains were formed due to the shifting of tectonic plates, and even random things that I didn't even realise was 'Geography'. However, I also convinced her that Wales is held to the rest of the UK by giant chains so it doesn't get swept away when the tide goes out.
People don't think critically any more. People are not creative and have very little initiative; they want to be a cognitive psychologist so they'll learn everything able cognitive psychologies and it's uses in treating phobias, but won't have read a decent book in their life.
People aren't 'smart' any more, they are specialised. I think this is reflected in schools, they nurture your strengths and almost give up on your failings.
I knew someone who was considering taking A-Level in Geography and had the grades to do so. She could go on about the effects of coastal erosion, how mountains were formed due to the shifting of tectonic plates, and even random things that I didn't even realise was 'Geography'. However, I also convinced her that Wales is held to the rest of the UK by giant chains so it doesn't get swept away when the tide goes out.
People don't think critically any more. People are not creative and have very little initiative; they want to be a cognitive psychologist so they'll learn everything able cognitive psychologies and it's uses in treating phobias, but won't have read a decent book in their life.
People aren't 'smart' any more, they are specialised. I think this is reflected in schools, they nurture your strengths and almost give up on your failings.
A kid didn't know that Armenia existed? They suffered a horrendous genocide...that isn't stupidity, that's just ignorance.RyQ_TMC said:
Seriously? I quoted some university students who showed lack of knowledge of some basic facts (and these weren't the only ones, I just went for the most glaring examples) and from that I concluded the British school system is not the All-wonderful Genius-producing Ubersystem I was told it is... and you consider that the same as calling you all idiots?Sparrow Tag said:
Not the smartest point ever made, really.
OK, I'll try putting it in a less ambiguous way: I've lived in Poland, the UK, and the US, and in all three I've met more people with lack of common knowledge than you can shake a stick at. The thing is, I've never heard anybody claim that Polish or American school systems is the best in the world. In case of the British system, I have been consistently told (not only by that teacher; he was just the most explicit about it) that it is one of the best and certainly one to draw example from.
Also, while I'm at it, thanks to all the people who answered my question.
Education isn't a competition to give students the most facts or even the best level of general knowledge. It's meant to give you a basic understanding of some subjects, a specialised understanding of others and the skills necessary for learning these facts on your own. As a student in a British university, coming from the state school system, I only know where Armenia is from two chance events (A Kurdish housemate and a decolonization teacher who also happened to be an expert on the Armenian Genocide). This doesn't mean that the education system failed since it put me into contact with such intelligent individuals and gave me the critical skills to learn from them.
Secondly, university education is (wherever you go) hugely specialised. I wouldn't expect a philosophy student to be able to do advanced calculation or a chemist to know where Armenia is. They aren't ignorant but they also aren't paying their tuition fees to learn these facts and there is no reason they should know them unless they happen to be independently interested or have randomly acquired the facts.
Phew, rant over.
Secondly, university education is (wherever you go) hugely specialised. I wouldn't expect a philosophy student to be able to do advanced calculation or a chemist to know where Armenia is. They aren't ignorant but they also aren't paying their tuition fees to learn these facts and there is no reason they should know them unless they happen to be independently interested or have randomly acquired the facts.
Phew, rant over.
The British education system used to be excellent when we had Grammar schools.
Now it's a mess.
Kids aren't taught how to think, they're taught to the test.
Kids aren't allowed to compete, it's "unfair" on the losers.
Kids aren't allowed to take risks, they may get hurt.
Kids aren't allowed to be disciplined, it's against their human rights.
This means that a generation of kids are leaving the education system completely unable to think critically, if at all.
I frequently butt heads with my manager at work, who has a degree, because he frequently hands me a task to do and says something like
"I need you to action this."
Since when was 'action' a verb?
As for the fighting in lines - it was the best method at the time, to have the bulk of your forces in a thin line, firing in platoons along the battle line. It gave the ability to have constant fire, minimised damage from artillery and allowed the line to form a square when cavalry appeared.
Skirmishers (riflemen, using the more accurate Baker rifle) were sent out to dirupt the enemy lines and kill enemy officers.
If you tried to use modern tactics of eight man fire teams, they would have been butchered by cavalry. Automatic weapons make a huge difference.
The English (and other Home Countries, but it was about 75% English) kicked Napolean's arse up and down the peninsula becuase they used squares, thinking the weight of men would crush the fragile English lines. Turned out that only the first two rows of the square could shoot back...
Plus the French didn't practice shooting with live gunpowder so they could only manage 2 or 3 shots a minute on a good day, wheras the English were shooting 3 to 4 rounds per minute constantly.
-A
Now it's a mess.
Kids aren't taught how to think, they're taught to the test.
Kids aren't allowed to compete, it's "unfair" on the losers.
Kids aren't allowed to take risks, they may get hurt.
Kids aren't allowed to be disciplined, it's against their human rights.
This means that a generation of kids are leaving the education system completely unable to think critically, if at all.
I frequently butt heads with my manager at work, who has a degree, because he frequently hands me a task to do and says something like
"I need you to action this."
Since when was 'action' a verb?
As for the fighting in lines - it was the best method at the time, to have the bulk of your forces in a thin line, firing in platoons along the battle line. It gave the ability to have constant fire, minimised damage from artillery and allowed the line to form a square when cavalry appeared.
Skirmishers (riflemen, using the more accurate Baker rifle) were sent out to dirupt the enemy lines and kill enemy officers.
If you tried to use modern tactics of eight man fire teams, they would have been butchered by cavalry. Automatic weapons make a huge difference.
The English (and other Home Countries, but it was about 75% English) kicked Napolean's arse up and down the peninsula becuase they used squares, thinking the weight of men would crush the fragile English lines. Turned out that only the first two rows of the square could shoot back...
Plus the French didn't practice shooting with live gunpowder so they could only manage 2 or 3 shots a minute on a good day, wheras the English were shooting 3 to 4 rounds per minute constantly.
-A