How Can We Make American Students Smarter?

[sanddrag]

Another fundamental flaw of education is that to a large degree we group all the students together at random as if they are all equals. They are not. Imagine how much further ahead we'd be if we took all the bright students and put them together, and didn't have to slow them down by placing them in classes with failing students. I think sometimes equality goes too far.

And regardless of smartness or intelligence, what about the simple desire to be there? I'd venture to guess approximately half of high-school students don't want to be in school or don't see the point. Why should the rest of everyone have to deal with them? Put them in their own school and let everyone else move on. Of course, I have no idea what the societal impacts of a such an idea would be.

There should be more schools for people who are determined to learn. A place where those with a desire to learn do not have to be surrounded by the ones without such a desire. One of the reasons FIRST works so well is that all the people who do it want to. The same can't be said for most high school classes.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should leave behind mediocre or poor students. What I am saying though is that it makes no sense for a Ferrari to be stuck behind a dump truck on a single-lane road.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Another fundamental flaw of education is that to a large degree we group all the students together at random as if they are all equals. They are not. Imagine how much further ahead we'd be if we took all the bright students and put them together, and didn't have to slow them down by placing them in classes with failing students. I think sometimes equality goes too far.

And regardless of smartness or intelligence, what about the simple desire to be there? I'd venture to guess approximately half of high-school students don't want to be in school or don't see the point. Why should the rest of everyone have to deal with them? Put them in their own school and let everyone else move on. Of course, I have no idea what the societal impacts of a such an idea would be.

There should be more schools for people who are determined to learn. A place where those with a desire to learn do not have to be surrounded by the ones without such a desire. One of the reasons FIRST works so well is that all the people who do it want to. The same can't be said for most high school classes.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should leave behind mediocre or poor students. What I am saying though is that it makes no sense for a Ferrari to be stuck behind a dump truck on a single-lane road.

Sir, I've noticed that you are a teacher at a magnet school. Would you say that the magnet system works in effectively producing high performance students? Now, I had no choice but to go to the school I go to right now; I did not even qualify for your school in Middle School. Was the requirements a C average? Yea, I did not have a C average in middle school. Now, I do not want to really start comparing, but are magnet schools actually better than regular public schools?

A side note: Have we met in person?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

David,
One thing I have learned over the years is that there are very few "dumb" people. There is a lot of people that are about the same degree of "smart". The difference is how focused they are. If one constantly looks at the stars, inevitably they will trip over their untied shoelaces. If you are one who chooses to look at everything at once, then it is difficult to be great in one area. What you need to learn is how to focus in the area needed for the moment. Get the job done and then go back to a wider view. Think about Einstein... He noticed that the bell and clang of the street car changed as it approached him and then passed him. We know it as the Doppler effect now, but his view was wide open. Then he concentrated down onto the effect and looked for it in other areas he was interested in. As he concentrated, he realized that light coming towards us shifted up in frequency and that moving away from us shifts down.
The unfortunate issue in all of this is testing. It is hard to concentrate on just the material needed for the test. However, you need to train yourself to do so. Testing is an imperfect system but it is the one in use. If you want to do something with your life (and it sure sounds like it does!) then you have to make the decision to change and adapt. You and I both know you are capable of exactly what those students in the top 10% are currently doing. Figure out a way to get motivated and do the work. Believe me, you will be much happier in the end.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Testing is an imperfect system but it is the one in use. If you want to do something with your life (and it sure sounds like it does!) then you have to make the decision to change and adapt. You and I both know you are capable of exactly what those students in the top 10% are currently doing. Figure out a way to get motivated and do the work. Believe me, you will be much happier in the end.

David, Al is right. I am sure you know this by now but you are not going to be able to change the system fast enough to benefit you. That means to get anywhere you need to play the system. When you get to college it only gets worse, at a highly competitive school your GPA will be key to your success. I know you posted earlier saying you disliked students that play the system to boost their GPA but trust me improving your GPA opens doors.

Most top engineering schools will say they don't have a "Cut Off" GPA or SAT score for admissions, and it is true that these schools turn down people without standing test scores but if your SAT scores are in the 1200's (1800's by the new test) you are going to have to have some impressive accomplishments to get into a top tier school (75% of accepted MIT students score over 1410/2080).

I went to what I consider a very good engineering school (though our 75th percentile for test scores is about the same as MITs 25th) at RPI which is notorious for not inflating GPAs. If you don't take the time to do the work and maintain a GPA above 3.0 (or higher if you want to go to grad school) you will regret it. I had a good GPA and had no trouble finding a job after school. I have a friend who had a Sub 3.0 GPA and had his resume handed back to him at the career fair because many companies will not even look at candidates that don't maintain a 3.0+. While some may think that being smart, hardworking and capable will get you a job somewhere and you can work up based on your merits (not your GPA) from there you are right but only to an extent. Leadership development programs at top companies like GE, BAE, Lockheed, and MITRE require GPA's of 3.5+ and are worth every pit of the work, after completing a 2-5 year rotational program you are fast tracked in engineering management, the pay scale is exponentially higher for these jobs, mean while your classmates with lower GPA's (even with 3.0+) find themselves working their way up through Engineer 1, Engineer 2 and so one, a high GPA can easily mean a 5 year head start in your career.

The system may suck but if you are smart enough to identify the system you should be smart enough to see that working with it is the best way to get the most out of yourself.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

The system may suck but if you are smart enough to identify the system you should be smart enough to see that working with it is the best way to get the most out of yourself.

Or if you're smart enough to transfer to a school that doesn't do grade deflation on the scale that RPI does.

Some students take thousands of dollars of summer classes to bump their 2.9 GPAs to 3.0 GPAs. It's that important for your first job, apparently.

[EricH]

GPA: Yep, it's usually important for the first job. If you don't have that 3.0+, you'll have a mountain to climb to get in. Some companies want a 3.2+. At least, that's how it tends to be in the engineering world. I can't speak for non-engineering jobs on this.

Regarding the SAT comments earlier: They did ditch the analogies (with which decision I was mildly disappointed); now they need to do the same thing with the essay. (Or, make sure that you can't grade it from across the room based on length--there are people (not official SAT graders) who can do that, and never read the essay, and get the grade "right", as in the same as the SAT grader.)

Back to the initial question: Smaller class sizes, better motivation techniques than "I'm required to be here", and toughen the minimum graduation requirements by a class or two in certain areas. (Why toughen? Because the students will rise to the challenge.)

[Techhexium]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

I know you posted earlier saying you disliked students that play the system to boost their GPA but trust me improving your GPA opens doors.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Another fundamental flaw of education is that to a large degree we group all the students together at random as if they are all equals. They are not. Imagine how much further ahead we'd be if we took all the bright students and put them together, and didn't have to slow them down by placing them in classes with failing students. I think sometimes equality goes too far.

Thanks, to both of you for enlightening me on this. Students have been told that GPA and smaller classroom size are important but as I read through this thread I find the answers of why GPA and classroom sizes are important are subtle. I must admit that I'm in a similar scenario davidthefat is in.

As to how can we make students smarter, I'm certain the implementation of honors and AP classes into school serve the purpose of allocating intelligent students so they don't get alienated in regular courses. But depending on one's perspective, it's not always ideal. For example, I worked hard in my classes but I don't always achieve an A in an honors or AP course. But because I strive for perfection (I realize that I shouldn't do that anymore), I envy the people who get the best grades. I would try to circumvent the system by self-studying for an AP Exam and taking a college course through my local community college, though I'm limited to only one course.

As others have said, there is no universal approach to education but there are incentives to help establish motivation to succeed like FIRST.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

David, Al is right. I am sure you know this by now but you are not going to be able to change the system fast enough to benefit you. That means to get anywhere you need to play the system. When you get to college it only gets worse, at a highly competitive school your GPA will be key to your success. I know you posted earlier saying you disliked students that play the system to boost their GPA but trust me improving your GPA opens doors.

Most top engineering schools will say they don't have a "Cut Off" GPA or SAT score for admissions, and it is true that these schools turn down people without standing test scores but if your SAT scores are in the 1200's (1800's by the new test) you are going to have to have some impressive accomplishments to get into a top tier school (75% of accepted MIT students score over 1410/2080).

I went to what I consider a very good engineering school (though our 75th percentile for test scores is about the same as MITs 25th) at RPI which is notorious for not inflating GPAs. If you don't take the time to do the work and maintain a GPA above 3.0 (or higher if you want to go to grad school) you will regret it. I had a good GPA and had no trouble finding a job after school. I have a friend who had a Sub 3.0 GPA and had his resume handed back to him at the career fair because many companies will not even look at candidates that don't maintain a 3.0+. While some may think that being smart, hardworking and capable will get you a job somewhere and you can work up based on your merits (not your GPA) from there you are right but only to an extent.

It is cognitive dissonance to say, "I can have a bad GPA" and "I can work my way up quickly once I get a job." Fact of the matter is a job is hard work... harder work than what you do in school. If you can't work hard enough in school to get a 3.0+, why would you think you'll magically work so much harder to climb the ladder when you get a job? A 3.0+ is proof that you can apply yourself and do decent quality work. Watching youtube for several hours instead of doing that path critical work isn't going to looked well upon by your manager...

The "Oh, I'd apply myself if I liked what I was doing" doesn't make a whole bunch of sense to me either. Even if you land a job doing exactly what you want to do (and honestly, the chances of this are pretty slim) there will be occasions where you don't like what you're doing, and people will still expect you to do good work.

There are lots of old engineers and thus lots of opportunities for young, hardworking engineers. The ball is always in your court. Take advantage of it. (I'm with James, I consider all the opportunities RPI has given me to be a distinctive #firstworldproblem)

Today I've just started "The New Cool", for the 6th time, and reading a quote from Woodie Flowers made me rethink the entire schooling process, and the FIRST process. The exact quote (below) explains how in schools we are "training" students, and in FIRST, we are "educating" students.

"Training and education are very different. Training is a commodity. Education is the part that confers comparative advantage. Much of what we call engineering education is in fact training and poorly done. Learning calculus is training. Learning to think using calculus is education; learning spelling and grammar is training. Learning to communicate is education; learning a CAD (computer-aided design) program is training. Learning to design is a much more complex, sophisticated thing; learning the parts is training. Learning from synthesis and whole is education. It's not clean. The boundary is clearly fuzzy. Once you could be trained to be a professional if you knew things, that was enough, but information is ubiquitous, you can't have an advantage in society because you know something."

Dr. Flowers, I couldn't have said it better. Obviously, our current school system has us "learn" things, while systems such as FIRST have us "educated".

[davidthefat]

http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

[Techhexium]

Another detriment of the system placed upon education that I don't think has been mentioned is that colleges also get affected when a student does not show his or her full potential due to the fault of system, they don't get to learn everything about the student.

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Today I've just started "The New Cool", for the 6th time, and reading a quote from
Woodie Flowers made me rethink the entire schooling process, and the FIRST process. The exact quote (below) explains how in schools we are "training" students, and in FIRST, we are "educating" students.

Forgive me, but I totally forgot this book even exists! (I have seen the book before) I'll consider buying the book to read it.

Also, another thing you reminded me of is this video shown in the 2011 Kickoff featuring Woodie Flowers. One thing he said was very similar to the quote you provided, though very general but nevertheless still inspiring!

Originally Posted by davidthefat

http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

Thanks for the link. This is still relevant today.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

That whole book—Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!—is very good. Also consider What Do You Care What Other People Think?, another collection of autobiographical material by Feynman.

[Kims Robot]

Great topic & some very well thought out responses! Let me preface my responses with that in general I don't like the concepts of NCLB or Standardized Testing. Both have many flaws, but as many point out, it is the current "system" that we have, and if we agree that many of these policies fail to achieve the true objective, we need to propose a better way. There have a been a lot of great points here, but I don't think any of us has proposed a good enough "solution" such that we could replace either policy completely.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

The other glaring flaw with NCLB is that it takes funding away from schools that score poorly. Given that change and improvement tend to cost money, this is exactly the wrong move.

In general I agree here, though its a double edged sword right? The move to pull funding assumes that the school is motivated by funding, and will strive hard to get it back. Where-as just like any question of motivation, it doesn't work in a lot of cases. I would think many schools would just whine and complain that they can't do anything without enough funding, and just throw up their hands blaming the system. Yet we see constant examples of "where there is a will there is a way". If they really really wanted that funding back, they could find ways to work harder, motivate their staff and students. I can't say I agree with the funding pull, but its the only control/incentive the government currently has.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

First way to fixing education is smaller class sizes. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

I'm not sure I actually agree with this. In college I was fortunate to have Physics and Chemistry teachers that were absolutely amazing and intriguing. Every other class they would blow something up, hang from the ceiling, throw a bowling ball off a ladder... etc etc. They knew how to grab our attention and make science "real". Yet these were class sizes of lecture hall proportions, nearly 100 students per class. Then take a step back to my honors class versions of Chemistry and Physics in high school, which were classes under 20, and probably didn't compare to what I really took in in college. While I know there is far too much need for the supply, I think engaging teachers & curriculum can actually overcome class sizes. If we stick with our standard methods of "I stand here and talk, you sit there and listen", I agree, class sizes need to be smaller. But I think there are better ways, curriculum that is more engaging.

Originally Posted by Phalanx

1) Parent accountability and responsibility... Perhaps a "Bad Parent Tax" should be levied.
2) Give Teachers greater ability to enforce greater classroom control and discipline.
3) Raise Standards.
4) End or Modify NCLB.

I think these are all great points. I can't say I think a Bad Parent Tax would be the right implementation (look how well money has motivated the failing schools as discussed above). But overall these are great points... HOW exactly we do them I think is the hard part.

Originally Posted by davidthefat

I guess I just was not the type for public education. I am the type of person that disregards grades, rank, awards, positions and stuff like that... I know I have my flaws, I know that I won't get into a good college if I keep this attitude up. I have to play by the rules of the game or I will be purged out of the system.

It sounds like you are coming from the perfect position to help us understand those who aren't motivated by the current system. What in fact WOULD motivate you? And if we had to keep the current system, what would have helped you "see the light" earlier? As Im sure it will be a while before any sweeping changes take effect.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Another fundamental flaw of education is that to a large degree we group all the students together at random as if they are all equals.

I am guessing this happens as people seem to complain about it, but it wasn't exactly my experience. From early on I was labeled one of the "honors" students. I did higher SRA cards than anyone in my class, I had to take all three levels of reading in my class just to give me "enough workload". I was placed in the TAG (Talented and Gifted) group where I got to meet with other "smart" kids a few times a week, pulling me out of my normal class. High schools have Honors and AP and College courses that "separate" the high performers from the low. I do think seeing some kids struggle, even some of my closest friends gave me a different perspective on things. I realized that I was "fortunate" enough that things came easy, and I wouldn't trade that. But I agree that it is good to give the different levels of students places to achieve differently.

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

...which is notorious for not inflating GPAs.

I always had difficulty with this. Comparing GPA's side by side just doesn't do the trick, and I specifically learned this when I was recruiting. The caliber of students coming out of Engineering schools like RPI, Clarkson, RIT, etc with 3.0 GPA's was much much higher than many coming from the state schools, so it was frustrating that HR placed a cutoff on us that we could not hire below a 3.0. I knew kids with 2.8's that were much smarter (and I would rather work with) than those with 3.5's just because they chose a "better" school that had harder GPA's.

Originally Posted by EricH

Back to the initial question:... better motivation techniques than "I'm required to be here", and toughen the minimum graduation requirements by a class or two in certain areas. (Why toughen? Because the students will rise to the challenge.)

The first point is my BINGO point The second seems like a good idea as well, though there will be some resistance when it first starts.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

Comparing GPA's side by side just doesn't do the trick, and I specifically learned this when I was recruiting. The caliber of students coming out of Engineering schools like RPI, Clarkson, RIT, etc with 3.0 GPA's was much much higher than many coming from the state schools, so it was frustrating that HR placed a cutoff on us that we could not hire below a 3.0. I knew kids with 2.8's that were much smarter (and I would rather work with) than those with 3.5's just because they chose a "better" school that had harder GPA's.

I think anyone can vouch for this problem. Though, it goes further then just comparing between schools. As long as the academic environment is different from the work environment, the ability of the student in college only approximates how well they will do in the work place. It is a very rough approximation at best. It is very hard to understand how that individual student got that particular GPA. For me, I've always gotten my grades through a natural talent and strategy when preparing for a test. I currently have a 3.4 GPA. I know a friend who does not have that natural talent, but he has a similar GPA because he is always about networking. He knows how to find the right person for any situation. If faced with a problem he can't figure out, he always knows who to go to for an explanation. In all honesty, which of us "did better"? We have the same GPA but I'd be willing to bet that he'd do better then me at most jobs. Simply because he has more of the skills needed in the work place while I have more of the skills needed in the academic environment. If it were me, I'd hire him before myself. Not a doubt in my mind.

Jason

[davidthefat]

http://i.imgur.com/NoI5H.jpg

I saw that in reddit today. Something to think about.