Students, what is your fantasy education system?

[Ken Leung]

Hi everyone!

Up to this point in my life I've been fascinated by how human being learn and how we grow up to become who we are, mostly because I've been busy doing both of those things myself. But that fascination didn't turn into a passion until recently when I got incredibly interested in how people think, how people learn, and how our species grow intellectually. That interest is compounded by the talks of globalization of the modern world and how American need to become more competitive against foreign countries such as India and China, where a lot of American job are getting outsourced to, and one of the keys to become more competitive turns out to be our education system. So, imagine my surprise when I discover, or rather, come to believe, that this all ties together.

Now, my intention for this thread is not to debate any of those things. I believe that's for another thread another time. What I really want to see is you students coming up with education systems you desire the most.


So, the challenge is, come up with an education system most suitable for yourself that could potentially replace kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, high school, and as far up as undergraduate degree (or even higher) if you really believe it is necessary. Be reasonable about the necessary skills and knowledge a child must learn when they are growing up, but other than that, feel free to go nuts. Or you can just go nuts completely.

There are many directions you can take. You can do it the easy way and come up with a system where you will have the most fun in, or you can do it the hard way and come up with a system that will do you the most good. Or you can do a little of both. I can’t tell you what to do, you must decide for yourself. The one thing I want to get out of this intellectual exercise is to understand the kind of learning experience that works well for a person by looking at the education system they most desire. The bottom line is, I want to see, what worked, and what you think will work.

The rest is up to you, and we will see where this exercise leads to. I will participate in this exercise as well, and I am eager to see what everyone comes up with.

Have fun!

[Ian Curtis]

So we're designing the system from the ground up correct?

Well, in my case it would start out much the same, everyone would begin in classes like kindergarten, at which point you would learn basic skills. Reading, Writing, and how to think logically, and work through things. These would be split into different levels as soon as it became evident how the child wanted to think (I know there's a fancy word but I can't find it). These would continue from around 5 to around 12. At this point you've been taught basics and how to think. Now classes would slowly become more open ended and more project orientated until the end of your education.

This is becuase you NEED to know how to think. You could memorize a text book but 10 years from now, it won't help you becuase the material has changed. But if you know how to read, you can read the textbook that comes along ten years alter.

I've ridden the edge of our districts overhaul of how it divides students and teaches them. I've been on both sides of the sword, distributed at random and grouped. I didn't learn as much when everyone wanted to move at different speeds, and the teacher was trying to teach everyone at the same speed.

Also I feel that basic skills need to be taught at lower levels. As a freshman, I just learned how to write an English paper. I spent my entire 8th grade year memorizing parts of speech, by which time my brain has already started to lose its ability to memorize. On the flip side my sister did a research paper at the start of 6th grade. Full blown, with a bibliography, notes, everything. She had been taught none of it in segments, just given this project. Basic skills need to be taught before more advanced ones. When I was in sixth grade I learned how to do a research paper in segments. First they taught you how to take good notes in an organized manner and you were graded on that. Then they taught you how to do an outline, and you were graded on that, so on and so forth.

Probably the most important class I've ever taken was "IT" or Industrial Technology. The teacher felt much the same way I do now. I took it from 6th to 8th grade. In sixth grade everything was very limited in how much choice you got. By grade eight it was much more open ended and if you didn't want to do anything or follow directions, he let you, and eventually you'd come back realizing you'd fallen on your face and he'd pick you back up. I learned how to think, and how to follow directions, both of which are more important than learning how to turn on a bandsaw.

NEW STUFF
I agree with Joe, standardized testing will be torn up, thrown in the garbage burned, and dumped into the ocean. I live in Maine, which last year decided they were going to go overboard on standardized testing. For my 4th quarter of 8th grade I was going to spend more days testing than learning! X-Whaaat?!?! The governor's wife, who was a teacher, realized that it was too much and they backed off quite a bit. Whewww

[JoeXIII'007]

Fantasy education system? Oh boy.

I cannot really say what exactly it would consist of, but here's some of the details:

1. The system would not be based on a 'one size fits all' method of teaching. In fact, if a student wanted to study by his or herself, and only have the teacher for difficult things, then so be it.

2. There would be no such thing as a cirriculum, for how can you learn anything when you know how everything is going to turn out in the end? How can you learn with such a linear path? How can anybody learn with teachers guiding the outcome towards what they want? Learning needs to be hands on experimentation (in science and math) and reading (in everything else) so that reality becomes a teacher, and hopefully the lone teacher, and all the possibilities can be learned.

3. Public schools will be public schools, private schools will be private. Somewhere in between there should be study hall that existed back in the schools of my mom and dad's day. Where anyone could gather and get away from the noise and false reality that lives in the public school system, and of course, focus on what they do not understand. This study hall could be accessed at any time, even during school hours, as long as the student has a pass. (Edited version)

4. Your grade and level should never be affected by your attendance but rather whether or not you understood the material. Example: Back when my school was on block scheduling, the Algebra 2 book's material was divied into two classes, Algebra 3 and 4. I took Algebra 3, studied the Algebra 4 material over the holiday break, and got the best score on the Algebra 4 exam than anyone else did who actually took that class. Now I'm in pre-calc even though I never took Algebra 4. (and this is in the 6-hour scheduling)

5. Students should really be able to study towards their major, and only that, when they get to college and maybe even high school. It is just a waste of time to learn something you will not use just because it is required to have such a credit to graduate. What we also don't know is the REAL reason WHY we have to learn useless material that is not towards our major. Is someone up to no good in this world???

6. Standardized testing would be rid of, torn up, thrown away, and written out of the history books. It is such a horrible measure of a person's ability and importance to society that I think future civilizations would be embarrassed to know their ancestors used a measuring stick for the brain to determine whether or not a person was capable of doing anything let alone smart enough to goto college.

7. Schools would never block the truth and reality of the world just to make everybody happy, for everyone will need to confront it, so we might as well learn how to handle it from day 1.

That's pretty much all my fantasy school system would include. It would still be your standard K-12, but with these new back doors, 'users' would be able to be served what they demand.

Got one question of curiosity though, what brought this topic up? Seems awfully interesting.

-Joe

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by JoeXIII'007

3. Public schools will be public schools, private schools will be private. Somewhere in between there should be study hall that existed back in the schools of my mom and dad's day. Where the intellects could gather and get away from the noise and false reality that lives in the public school system. This study hall could be accessed at any time, even during school hours, to students with a GPA of 3.5-4.0 and have a good rep with the staff of the school who gave them a passport.

Wouldn't this be defeating the purpose of a study hall if you limit it to only students who have a 3.5-4.0 GPA? Just because someone doesn't have a 3.5 doesn't necessarily mean that they slack off in school. Some students just do not grasp the material that they are taught and probably need more study time to understand it than someone who has a 4.0 might.

[JoeXIII'007]

Originally Posted by Adam Richards

Wouldn't this be defeating the purpose of a study hall if you limit it to only students who have a 3.5-4.0 GPA? Just because someone doesn't have a 3.5 doesn't necessarily mean that they slack off in school. Some students just do not grasp the material that they are taught and probably need more study time to understand it than someone who has a 4.0 might.

Good point, good point. Let me edit that.

(Sometimes I amaze myself at how stupid I can get. *sigh*)

-Joe

[eiii]

In my fantasy system, the first few years (preschool, kindergarden) would be mostly logical thinking, social skills, and more logical thinking. After that, the rate at which the kids could learn would probably be a lot higher.

[Hieb]

First--great topic. It is easy to see that our current educational system has its flaws. At the same time, it's not always easy to see ways to fix.

While I realize this is a "fantasy" system, I do have a few questions/comments:

Originally Posted by JoeXIII'007

5. Students should really be able to study towards their major, and only that, when they get to college and maybe even high school. It is just a waste of time to learn something you will not use just because it is required to have such a credit to graduate. What we also don't know is the REAL reason WHY we have to learn useless material that is not towards our major. Is someone up to no good in this world???

The problem I see here is that many, probably the majority, of students in high school haven't had enough experiences to be able to make an informed decision about a major. I knew quite a few people who after their first or second year of college still weren't really sure what they wanted to do.

And while we are not always aware of the reason for learning something (and sometimes as teachers we are not fully aware of why we are teaching something), 1.) it doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly valid reason for learing it, and 2.) can it really hurt that much to learn something new? Perhaps that seemingly irrelevant piece of learning will someday spark an idea that in a totally unrelated field.

Originally Posted by JoeXIII'007

6. Standardized testing would be rid of, torn up, thrown away, and written out of the history books.

You'll get no argument from a majority of educators. Unfortunately it is politicians, often with no educational training or background, that demand some form of accountability (no problem there) whose answer often seems to be to throw another test in the mix.

Originally Posted by JoeXIII'007

7. Schools would never block the truth and reality of the world just to make everybody happy, for everyone will need to confront it, so we might as well learn how to handle it from day 1.

Whose perception of truth and reality do we use and who gets to make the decision? As we are learning to handle it from day 1 do we show our kindergarten classes videos of the devastation brought on by a suicide bomber or dead soldiers worldwide? Or do we perhaps wait with such "truths" until a time when the student is more mentally and emotionally mature. After watching a policitical speech do I give share the "truth" as seen from my left-leaning liberal stance, or the opposing "truth" of my colleague (and friend's) very conservative right-leaning stance, or the Green or Libertarian or whatever other "truth" you find.

Wow, that was a bit more than I intended going in to this post. Still, trying to design an educational system that will provide everyone, rich or poor, male or female, motivated or unmotivated,from educated families or uneducated, etc, etc, with the opportunity to reach their fullest potential is a huge undertaking. We may have our flaws, but we also have the desire to continue learning from the mistakes we make in order to provide the very best education possible.

Dan Hiebert

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Hieb

Whose perception of truth and reality do we use and who gets to make the decision? As we are learning to handle it from day 1 do we show our kindergarten classes videos of the devastation brought on by a suicide bomber or dead soldiers worldwide? Or do we perhaps wait with such "truths" until a time when the student is more mentally and emotionally mature.

I would definitely wait until they were more mature. Another point is by the time they learn about the world around them (they've been working on logical thinking skills and reading, and things of that nature) they should be presented the facts and left to draw their own conclusions, becuase there teaching up until then would have shown them how to think logically. All of my science teachers have done that on one topic or another, and it can be very thought provoking.

[Wetzel]

I had what I wanted and is needed for a successful education.

My parents were very involved from the beginning, and still take an interest. Parental involvement is one of the best indicators of a good outcome for children.

Wetzel

[artdutra04]

We should never censure reality for people, at least begining for students who are in junior high school or up. (By that point, they are becoming mature enough to understand.) When I was in elementary school, my parents always had the local ABC television news on in our kitchen, so I would watch it while I ate my breakfast. I never thought it was a bad thing, even though I would see things like bombings in Kosovo and refugees, etc. Now, I think of this as a great boost to my education, as I am usually the only one in the class who actually knows what is going on in the world.

Anyone remember Fahrenheit 451? We as a society should never let that future come to be. We should never ban books from anyone. Of the top 100 banned books in the United States, I have read most of them through my school district's curriculum. And although some may have objectible content to some people, the underlying reading-between-the-lines part is what makes these books some of my favorite.

Another thing I might add is begining school at an even younger age. The younger you start teaching people, the more it becomes perpetually wired into their brains. As the children get older, they are less likely to really learn new ways of thinking. Think of accents: once you are past twelve years old, you can never rid yourself of your native accent.

Currently, our educational system has much the same focus that it did in the 1800's - writing and 'rithmatic. These are the only topics tested in many of the standardized tests. But in today's society, science and history are just as important as math and English. Science is important becuase our ever evolving technology, and the fact that 1 in 5 Americans still believe the sun revolves around the Earth*. History is important, because if more people actually understood the past and how the political situation today came to be, they could make better choices.

Students and people in general need a solid education in science and history, since I have seen WAY too many people on both sides try to support a political stance with illogic reasoning or totally incorrect facts. This is horrible! It really hit home when my history teacher told our sophomore class last year that we were already smarter than 80% of all Americans. This needs to be fixed, otherwise our democracy will begin a long spiral into totalitarian fundamentalism.

I still believe that our education system can be fixed, and that we have not passed the point of no return. FIRST is doing a great job so far in the school district level and Vex Robotics is just starting to go mainstream (it recieved high remarks in Christmas toy reviews). FIRST is really making a difference in society, but its task is far from done. Only you can help finish it, by spreading the word of FIRST, starting new FRC, FVC, and FLL teams, and writing to your local politicians to try to catalyze new legislation that betters our education system.

*If you cannot get to the article, here is a the first part of it. I bolded the important part to make it more obvious.

Originally Posted by New York Times

Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

CHICAGO - When Jon D. Miller looks out across America, which he can almost do from his 18th-floor office at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, he sees a landscape of haves and have-nots - in terms not of money, but of knowledge.

Dr. Miller, 63, a political scientist who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at the medical school, studies how much Americans know about science and what they think about it. His findings are not encouraging.

While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.

Over the last three decades, Dr. Miller has regularly surveyed his fellow citizens for clients as diverse as the National Science Foundation, European government agencies and the Lance Armstrong Foundation. People who track Americans' attitudes toward science routinely cite his deep knowledge and long track record.

"I think we should pay attention to him," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, who cites Dr. Miller's work in her efforts to advance the cause of evolution in the classroom. "We ignore public understanding of science at our peril."

Rolf F. Lehming, who directs the science foundation's surveys on understanding of science, calls him "absolutely authoritative."

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

At one time, this kind of ignorance may not have meant much for the nation's public life. Dr. Miller, who has delved into 18th-century records of New England town meetings, said that back then, it was enough "if you knew where the bridge should be built, if you knew where the fence should be built."

"Even if you could not read and write, and most New England residents could not read or write," he went on, "you could still be a pretty effective citizen."

No more. "Acid rain, nuclear power, infectious diseases - the world is a little different," he said....

[Tristan Lall]

This may end up raising more questions than it answers (not that that's necessarily a bad thing); there are clearly many factors that deserve attention here—too many to list, really. I think I'll tackle some of the more controversial ones first, simply because it's more fun to make trouble. (However, since Ken asked nicely, I'll try to leave directed rebuttals out of it....)

What do we do about the fundamentally flawed (but some might argue necessary) position that everyone should be evaluated to the same standards? It is rather popular to tie everything to the outcome of standardized testing; in universities and most high schools, this has been the norm for ages—more recently, elementary schools have begun to adopt this technique, whether on their own, or by way of governmental and societal pressure. In the U.S., the No Child Left Behind legislation ties funding to the results of mandatory, standard tests; this is hardly a practice which I would implement in my vision of an educational model. That policy, in a word, is brutal; every time a school fails, it has less resources available to repair the damage; how is that anything but making the problem worse? (If unmotivated or irresponsible educators were the primary cause of schools failing to meet standards, then I admit, a slap on the wrist might, under some circumstances, do some good. But that's hardly what's going on, in the majority of cases.) In fact, the cynic in me thinks that this policy is some ideologue's implementation of a free-market economy in the education system. At the risk of arguing from incredulity, I can hardly conceive of a situation in which that sort of system would be beneficial, because allowing market forces to control education, means, quite simply, that while there will be winners, more importantly there will also be losers. As a society, we have a responsibility to provide quality education, and simply letting the losing schools fail themselves out of existence guarantees that their students will be shortchanged. Now, there's a more basic question here, irrespective of the philosophical underpinnings of the laws which require standardization. Are the results of the standardized tests even meaningful? After all, modern educators and clinical psychologists tend to agree that there are several modes of learning and recall; yet written examinations only test a few of the possible permutations. What of the students who excel at kinesthetic tasks, but do not handle fact-based examinations well, and consequently can't cope with the principal mode of evaluation? Since society seems to have accepted the premise that failing high school is the first step on the road to personal oblivion, are they doomed to repair appliances for the rest of their lives, making $9.00 per hour? Can we contend, with a straight face, that an office functionary with a B.A. is worth three to four times as much to society? We have our vocational schools, but yet, they often seem to get the short end of the stick, because of the perception that poor results on standardized tests are a reflection of the value of the people in attendance. So the school with the students who all aspire to be engineers, doctors and sociologists will receive more funding, and adulation, because its students are better at writing the tests. The vocational school—where the students can disassemble and reassemble things with ease, but can't necessarily be counted upon to write an essay about Crime and Punishment—gets screwed, perpetually and systematically, because of the students' inability to express their utility to society in some arbitrary manner, chosen because it's easy to evaluate, rather than because it's methodologically valid. I would therefore contend that we can't rely on standardized testing as the sole arbiter of things like funding and success; unfortunately, it also means that we would need to figure out something that can measure achievement either independently of learning style, or alternatively, based explicitly on their particular learning style(s). The trouble is, that's not an easy task, for a multitude of reasons.

As a result of our responsibility to students (which I will assume a priori), we must similarly be wary of private enterprise exercising too much control of education. I'm primarily referring to the good business practice, but bad social practice, which involves doing the minimum work, for the maximum profit. Unless there is an incentive and opportunity to excel, the system may well stagnate. Love them or hate them, the government has an explicit responsibility to act in the best interests of the society it serves; until a private company can irrevocably and wholeheartedly commit to that ideal, I will be wary of its decisions, because I suspect that they will be made not on the strength of their educational benefit, but rather as business decisions. I realize fully well that private schools are capable of offering the same education as their public counterparts, but I don't think that they (in general) are sufficiently socially responsible to cater to the needs of every student; indeed, I don't think they try as hard as public schools do, to create an environment where all students can function. And I should note, there is an economy of scale involved here; since a public education system attempts to provide opportunities for all, it can often designate one school a technical school, another an artistic school, etc., and allow the students a choice, without spreading its resources too thinly. Private schools aren't compelled, morally or legally, to cater to everyone, and therefore achieve their objectives by focusing on a much narrower segment of the populace, and leaving those without the means, or with other needs, to fend for themselves in the public system. They skim off what they desire, and leave the remainder to the public system, all the while profiting from the endeavour, while the government is forced to deal with the difficult cases; that's my other fundamental objection to that sort of a business model.

Now, to switch controversies, I've got a pet hate: stupidity. I try to avoid it myself, and would prefer that others do the same. However, I can't help but be disappointed by some of the things that go on in its name, in our public and private schools alike. One of the most egregious examples is, of course, the encroachment of religion into the domain of science. I noticed earlier that someone commented on the fact that reality is perceived differently by different people; this I can't help but grant. But that doesn't mean that there are no things upon which we, as pragmatic, informed individuals, can agree. Indeed, the schools have a responsibility to teach the facts insofar as they can be established, and to engage in informed, rational speculation, when the facts are unclear. Anything else is, in the strongest sense, intellectually bankrupt, and morally repugnant. Everyone has the right to hold their own opinions, whatever they are, and irrespective of any other entity's appraisal of those opinions. However the mere fact that you have an opinion is not lease to spread it around as if it were undeniable; for society to function effectively, we must strive to promulgate truth and rational conjecture above fiction and delusion. That means, using evidence and scientific reasoning, rather than the sophistry of apologetics, in order to justify our beliefs. That also means eliminating the stupidity of catering to every religious, pseudoscientific and deranged idea that crosses the mind of some parent who feels an entitlement to educate their children in the manner that they see fit. They have no such right. They have a higher responsibility; to make their children understand the world as it is, and not merely as they would have it be. Their morals are utterly irrelevant, when it comes to questions of fact; when it comes to questions of opinion, only then can they come into play. (Of course, I'm assuming that the world is largely as we perceive it; without this assumption, the only logical course of action is solipsism, which, while irrefutable, is not really a practical theory upon which to base the principles of a social institution. But let's avoid the deeper implications of epistemological philosophy for a while....) So, returning to the question of religion in schools, I feel strongly that religion should be relegated to being studied (impartially) in anthropology and philosophy classes, and never taught in the sciences, maths and other technical subjects. How absurd would it be for a robotics team to design things based on the teachings of a god or other supernatural creature? (Shall we make burnt offerings to the Victors, lest they make burnt offerings of themselves?) And yet, there is a concerted argument to allow biology students apply religious nonsense to their field of study? This is stupidity. This sort of thing is the antithesis of education, because it asks students—many of whom are not half as cynical, and well more than twice as impressionable as I—to make their own decisions based on inadequate knowledge, inadequate understanding, and inadequate explanation; in real science classes, ideally, at least, one is expected to be given the opportunity to understand the mechanisms at every step of the way; there is no significant "take it on faith", no referring to a single, unverifiable source, and most importantly, no blatant falsification and misrepresentation of evidence through dishonest and disingenuous means. By contrast, intelligent design creationism, and many other laughable beliefs, demand exactly all of these things, in varying measure. Keep them far, far, away from the education system, because there's enough stupidity in the world; we don't need to establish stupidity immersion programs for our children.

And, since I think that that was a destructive sort of paragraph, let me offer something constructive here. Teach more; way more. Start earlier, perhaps at the age of three or so (though I'm the first to admit age is not necessarily a good way to determine a child's readiness for an education—more on this later, perhaps). And teach everything—actually, this is what happened to me in a Montessori-style preschool. You might be surprised (given that Johnny still can't read in 2^nd grade) what kids can learn, if given half a chance, both at home and in a proper educational system. Yes, many kids are reading, writing and multiplying at 3 or 4, or earlier, if their parents were so kind as to send them to school, read with them, and actually play a role in their upbringing. (I am well aware that sometimes a family's circumstances dictate other courses of action; but I point out that this is an excuse for a single instance of mediocrity or worse, and not a justification for the status quo.) The cost of something like this is irrelevant, compared to the enormity of the potential benefits.

I hate to put such a fine point on this, and at the great risk of coming off as an especially pompous flavour of elitist, there are a lot of high school and elementary school students who are not ready for the subject matter that is being taught. And to top that, I'm going to relate an anecdote that will probably cement that impression in your minds—but despite this, I assure you that that's not my intent or motivation. When I was a primary school student, in kindergarten, and grades 1 through 3, I was often surprised at the things that many of the other students were doing. I, though smart, was not very worldly at the time, and was somewhat amazed that many of them couldn't read and write very well in both English and French. (Like I said, don't get the wrong impression. This is the unique brand of childhood naïveté of a rather atypical student.) Since I could do it, why couldn't most of them? Why were they in the "easy reader" section of the library, while I prowled the young adult and non-fiction sections, picking out and books designed primarily for intermediate or even high school students? Was it because I was inherently smarter than them, or because I had more opportunities in my extreme youth? I'll be an immodest bastard, and suggest that maybe it was a bit of both. But even so, I would very much have liked the opportunity to know for sure; I would much rather have been nondescript among a bunch of equally-intelligent students, simply because I can't imagine a better thing than more knowledge for all. So, what am I saying, amidst this reminiscence? That we ought to give more education a chance, in the hopes that we'll wean our children of the childrens' books when they're younger, and get them ready for the real world sooner. I must also note, that this sort of childhood didn't (in large measure) prevent me from enjoying the normal things that children enjoy (e.g. chocolate, snowball fights, and cartoons*); this is not about creating asocial and maladjusted young people. This is about getting Johnny learning as soon as possible, because it's going to benefit him eternally.

I feel that when children are well aware of the world around them, they'll inherently begin to make critical thinking a part of their lifestyle. Though I can't provide proof for this assertion, I would hypothesize that in general, people who were exposed to a simplistic and limited worldview as children, will grow up to be more credulous and gullible, and less rational, than those who were given every opportunity to learn. It must be the responsibility of the schools to promote this, because how can we trust the parents to do it? Recall that the parents may suffer from the same traits which we wish to avoid in the next generation; will they be capable of exceeding their existing predispositions? Doubtful. Once again, it is evident that given enough rope, people will hang themselves, and more pertinently, their children as well. In fact, though it may reek of authoritarianism, I once again suggest that parents are, in general, not qualified to have a large say in their childrens' educations. While this sort of thing always begets the question "well, then; who is qualified?", I will dodge it (artfully), and point out that nearly anything is better than allowing (or worse, encouraging) some idiot, who just happened to procreate, to damage the life of an innocent child, by imbuing their child's mind with all manner of falsehoods and other nonsense. It really comes down to the idea that we aren't educated enough, aren't responsible enough, as a society, to advance our society at the most expeditious rate possible, through the effective education of our offspring. In my hypothetical system, we would allocate this crucial responsibility to an education system. I can only fervently hope that it works in practice.

Switching gears again, to a more psychological question: what is it that determines when a child is ready to advance to the next level of education, whatever it may be? (And also, why are the levels organized as they are?) This is a big and difficult question. It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion, and in that respect, I can't be nearly as sure of the answer. I was leafing through a book in the University's library one recent evening, which dealt with this question. (Actually, I was surprised to come upon it in our engineering-heavy library.) Though I wasn't sure that I liked or agreed with all of the authors' reasoning and conclusions, I was captivated by their treatment of the question. They suggested that it would be advantageous to use the concept of mental age, rather than chronological age, to determine placement. If a student is intellectually and emotionally ready for grade four, put him in grade four, they suggested. But while that's nice for a student who is both intellectually ready, and emotionally ready, what if he's one, but not the other? Shall we have a class for each permutation? No, I think not, because that's a logistical nightmare. Can we prioritize? It seems to me that some sort of prioritization based on intellectual and emotional development might at least be better than our arbitrary system of age-based categorization (which is, at best a weak approximation, and at worst bereft of causative links); I'm just at a loss to describe how we could go about something like this. Taking myself as an example, if I could read and write at a 10^th grade level in 2^nd grade (again, it's immodest, and I apologize once more for that, but it's pretty much true), but was surely not ready for anything more than 4^th grade from an emotional standpoint, what would we do? Send me to grade 4? What about the extra two years? Do I really want to graduate high school at 16? (I have one friend who did; he's a former FIRST student, and now at MIT—but I never really asked him how he felt on this issue.) I know that I vastly enjoyed the majority of high school (that's an unpopular sentiment for some reason), and I'm not sure, in hindsight, that I would have enjoyed it nearly so much, if I were dealing with the emotional burden that can potentially exist in such a situation. I guess that we've come full circle, with this question, because every method (that I can think of) for ascertaining a student's readiness for promotion will lead to some aspect of their life being twisted out of conjunction with that of their peers. There's to be no artful dodging this time: I don't know the optimal solution, if one exists.

Another pet question of mine deals with the issues surrounding motivation. Why do we treat the unmotivated and unintelligent in the same fashion? Assuming that they are sufficiently interested in becoming productive members of society, doesn't it seem strange that we conflate these two radically different situations, and treat them both with remediation? I'm not convinced that one size fits all here. Indeed, I sometimes consider myself a little unmotivated—but I don't want to be remediated for my troubles. Simply put, it's often useless to me, and is manifestly ignorant of my needs. I think that this would be rather easy to implement, if only we could divest people of the notion that every academic blemish is treatable, simplistically, with more study. There's more to school than simply the collection of marks, and in the absence of good marks, there must necessarily be more to school than simply more work.

You know, there's a vast irony here, which isn't lost on me. I'm an engineering student. Mechanical engineering, in fact, in what is likely the best engineering school in Canada (top two, for sure). And yet, I'm writing this post like some kind of arts student (like my brother, in fact), about something which I can virtually guarantee will never even be touched upon in any of my courses. It's fantastically interesting, and cathartic to boot, and yet, according to the accepted wisdom, this skill is next-to-useless to an engineering graduate. It is one of my greatest concerns with the education system, as it exists now, that someone with the varied interests and skills that I possess, fits nowhere. If you'd seen my transcript coming out of high school, you might well have guessed that I'd be enrolled in science, or something like it, with a minor in computer science or sociology. If you looked at my extracurriculars, engineering was a definite possibility, with a computer science major equally probable. And if you looked at my interests, well, without FIRST, I don't have a clue what I would have ultimately chosen as a discipline for postsecondary study. But has all of that served me well? I'm not sure. It's a particularly vicious fact that polymathy isn't a degree program, and therefore, I'm forced to choose something, and put up with it, and hope that I can find sufficient enjoyment in it. In fact, there's another problem right there. I look first for enjoyment in learning; in self-directed learning, this is effortless; in structured learning, this can be brutally difficult, especially in mechanical engineering, which in many respects, epitomizes the "old school". I'm forced to choose between a career (such as engineering), and intellectual stimulation, which, frankly, is lacking in my faculty, but presumably present elsewhere. I don't know how I'd accomplish it, but it's my sincere hope that in an education system of my design, it would be possible to balance the liberal arts with the technical ones, without damaging, or indeed sacrificing outright, the possibilities for a future career.

It is of substantial importance, to me at least, that an education can satiate the desire to learn that drives so much of what I do. High school, for the most part did just that, allowing me to take my time over five years (this was standard for university-bound students in Ontario, at the time), choosing courses which I enjoyed, always at the highest level, doing many things which I enjoyed in my spare time, and generally enriching myself. I can't help but be bitter that so much stock is put into the notion that high school is simply preparation for university, when, upon gaining admission, I found that in reality, it is not half the education that I demand. Make no mistake, I love certain aspects of engineering; designing things, building things, troubleshooting, problem solving; they're all great, and I'd like to think that I'm rather good at them. But I hate classes where a student can simply sit at home, doing assigned questions well into the night, and pass his final exam without so much as single written word. Is it really so perverse of me to wish for essay questions? I was leafing through my brother's physics textbook recently, and remarked how it would have been fantastic if we had only been given the background information from that book in our first-year physics courses; it would have made the examinations so much more palatable, to have had, instead of one of the calculation questions, an essay question to demonstrate an understanding of the facts, rather than just the math. This is directly related to the notion of testing all skill sets, when making an evaluation; it should be abundantly clear why I favour this sort of approach.

I alluded earlier to the need for variety; but there's another kind of experience that's worth a mention. The hands-on, practical kind. It's what FIRST is greatest for, in my mind, but also, it what the engineering curriculum lacks. I find it asinine that we have a miniature design project in 1^st year, another in 3^rd, and then only in 4^th year do we actually get to see something both designed and built, as part of the required studies. Sure, extracurricular activities allow for this sort of thing, but what sort of message does that send to society about our engineers? To me, it reeks of a mindset wherein the objective is to teach the theory, and hope (desperately) that the real world will fill in the gaps in the engineers' knowledge. It may be cheap, it may be easy, and it may well cater to the majority of the students in my faculty; however, for the few like me, it seems wrongheaded in the extreme. If I were to re-work this educational system, I would have to find a way to work the practical skills into the curriculum, rather than relying on co-op jobs, and jobs after graduation to round the student off into the consummate engineer.

So, where does all this leave us? I've advocated a public, secular and challenging curriculum, with plenty of opportunities for all. I have no illusion that such things come cheaply, and even so, I don't particularly care. Though I paint myself a socialist shade of red with this one, I, as a reasonably well-off citizen, want to pay for this in taxes. I want everyone to take part in what is quite possibly the single most important thing in a civilized society; the dissemination of a truly great education, to all those who wish to partake of it. Speaking broadly, knowledge unlocks the mysteries of our universe; it is in the interests of humanity, as a supposedly-enlightened race, to, as soon as it is practicable, go beyond simple subsistence lifestyles (be it paycheque to paycheque, or meal to meal) and create something which has the potential to advance the human condition. Education, because it begets knowledge, is the thing that epitomizes this goal.

To all, I'm not going to be offended if you didn't feel it necessary to read all of that. Like I pointed out, as catharsis, it's as much for me as for you. And Ken, if this kills your thread, I'm sorry, especially because I obviously thought the topic was a good one....

*All of which, I might add, I managed to indulge in this evening....

[Morgan Gillespie]

Some things in life you have to learn hit or miss, and a one size fits all (as stated) system cannot do that. My school has a study hall where you are required either to do work or sleep. That’s it, no talking, no listening to cd players, no playing sending notes, no anything.(other than homework and sleep) Now some people will say, "oh this is a great place for children to concentrate and do their homework." Well ok I do do my homework and I finish but do we seriously need absolute silence? Honestly? Days when I have no homework I go insane, I cannot sleep, I cannot sneak my DS under the desk and play it, and I doodle... why? Because its too dang quiet! When I draw I hear my pen drag, when I play DS I hear the buttons tap, when I try to sleep I hear nothing so I cant sleep! I even have to have my windows open to hear the cars passing by in my room so I can sleep. Even right now my windows are open, its 40 degrees in my room but I'm still going. The students who need absolute silence are a much smaller group than those who don't. Just saying.. being bored in study hall I have a lot of time on my hands, to make paper catapults and wonder life’s questions, like If a swat team knocks down your door do they have to pay for it? Anyway. Another thing I would change in schooling, would be TRSs. Oh man do I hate TRSs.. For those who don't know a TRS is a Test Record Sheet. Where all your tests, quizzes and projects are written down with your grade on that specific assignment then due the next day with your parental units signature. This counts as a homework assignment... WHY!!!
I got a C+ in science last year, why? Because I had a 50% homework average, a 90% test average, a 86% quiz average, and a 80% class participation average. Why did I get a 50% homework average, because every time he hands back a quiz I put it in my folder and forget about it. Even if its a good grade I forget to have my parents sign it. IMO signing tests should only add extra credit points to the test or something. That is why I am doing better in High School than in Middle School. This is occurring because High School doesn't require all this crap, basically you do your homework, listen in class, study for tests and quizzes and you do good. School System now is pretty good, with a few major annoyances.
Sorry if this came out strong/messy, I've been up for the past 42 hours...

[JoeXIII'007]

I wanted to add to what Tristan said about religion trying to sneak into the public education system. In a few short words, I agree that religion should have no part in what teachers teach in science, simply because there is no tangible proof. They are beliefs (some of which I hold), and nothing else.

This does not mean that one cannot learn about religous beliefs. If it doesn't get taught at a public school, the student can, if he/she wants, got to a school that teaches them. I did that throughout my elementary school years, and learned a lot from it. If one doesn't want to do that, but still learn about religous beliefs, then go to a book store and buy a copy of the Bible, Karan, etc, and READ it. Read it for hours straight. I did that 2 years ago and learned a lot.

2 cents.
-Joe

[Ken Leung]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

To all, I'm not going to be offended if you didn't feel it necessary to read all of that. Like I pointed out, as catharsis, it's as much for me as for you. And Ken, if this kills your thread, I'm sorry, especially because I obviously thought the topic was a good one....

I think you are underestimating just how much we care about this topic, even though we don't write as long as you do, well, not yet anyway. I read the whole thing, even if I had to look at the main points of each paragraph and skip over some of the details. You points are well taken. Would've been nice, though, if you had an outline for your points ;-). But what you've writen is completely fine.

I am not ready to write a detailed version of my thoughts on this subject, so instead, I will give a short outline and let you guys think about that for a while. This outline is still work in progress. We will also see when I managed to put the whole thing down in writing...


I think a good education system should be all about the following things:

Learning, thinking, motivation, inspiration, application, mind-opening, exposure, diversity, understanding, experience, foundation, initiative, journey, and empowerment.

Just as important, I think that education and learning should come from the following places, and not just school by themselves:

Self, Friends, Family, School, Culture, Government, and the World.

Don't have time to elaborate that yet, so I will let you guys think about it.

[sciguy125]

I think that the best way for people to learn is to let them go about it at their own pace. Some material comes naturally to some people while others have to spend some time with it. And by spending time, I don't neccessarily mean studying more.

I barely scraped by my first two semesters of calc. Toward the end of each semester, when I realized how poorly I was doing, I started studying more. I found that it didn't actually help me understand the material. However, I was able to memorize more of it. After awhile, anything that gets thrown at you is something you've already done. That was the only reason I was able to make it through. It took another few months before I actually understood it.

There's also been several occasions when I just can't figure something out. I'll sit with the book for hours trying to learn it. I'll go ask people for help and I still won't get it. After awhile, I'll get tired and put it down. When I come back to it in a few days, it makes complete sense. I don't know why it was hard earlier and I don't know why I understand it now. It just took time to soak in.

Other times, I need to look at it from a different perspective. Last semester, I learned about RLC circuits in physics. They made very little sense to me. This semester, I learned about them again in engineering and it was easy. I went back to take a look at my physics stuff and I understand it. I just needed to look at it differently.

I can't force myself to learn material, it'll take as long as it takes. I'm not sure how to impliment this in a school system, but I think it would be much more effective.