The Future of Education - ReRolled Solves Problems

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
21,048
28,788
94d 4h 37m
there is no way I would have passed a test, I would not have gone on to college, I would not be where I am today.
So?

Ever stop and think that maybe wherever you "are" today, you didn't earn? The problem with our "everyone goes to college, everyone can be a WINNAR!" formula today is:

1> Obviously everyone isn't a winner
2> Since goddamn assistant managers at Wendy's have college degrees these days, the differentiator is who you know, what your culture is and your socioeconomic status
3> Someone has to pay for all these future auto mechanics and landscapers and Wendy's assistant managers to go to college

If academic achievement was actually based more on merit and intellectual ability and less "if you try hard little timmy, you can make it!" maybe we'd be better off.

Life is not a casual MMO where everyone pays their $15 and gets to enjoy the content. All you do by removing the intellectual ability pay walls is ensure that the entitled class will remain the entitled class.
 

Tmac

Adventurer
<Silver Donator>
4,847
8,001
43d 22h 37m
1. The public school system will always fail, because it is built on rails. Kids learn differently, they behave differently and they respond differently. To create a one-dimensional curriculum is as successful as an ice cream shop with one flavor.

There are students that grow up in the public school system that are told they are retarded or have a learning disability, because they don't catch on to the material as quickly as other students. This problem is expounded as these students continue on through the system, slowly getting further and further behind. By the time they reach 5th grade, they're placed in "special" classes and begin to believe that they are indeed "stupid".

My mom has worked with kids like these and taught them things they never thought they could learn (Math). You would probably cry if you saw the joy on their faces when, for the first time, they actually believe in themselves.

This is an example of one type of student that gets left behind in the current system. There are several others...

2. The public school system will always fail, because teaching is not a competitive profession. The best and brightest of America's youth are not looking to become teachers when they graduate school.

You could walk into a very large majority of school today and ask the principal if there are teachers there that take advantage of the system. They will tell you yes (anonymously) and they might even tell you who they are. Competition promotes growth and creativity. It leaves the schleppers behind and rewards those who actually perform.

Wherever people have tried to create something like this, the teachers unions show up, rally the troops and squash it.

---------

TL;DR - Education in America is broken. Working as intended.
 

Tmac

Adventurer
<Silver Donator>
4,847
8,001
43d 22h 37m
If academic achievement was actually based more on merit and intellectual ability and less "if you try hard little timmy, you can make it!" maybe we'd be better off.
In other words, if we remove the human from humanity, everyone wins?


Life is not a casual MMO where everyone pays their $15 and gets to enjoy the content.
Education would become a lot more effective if parents were paying for it out of their own pocket. You might be on to something!

All you do by removing the intellectual ability pay walls is ensure that the entitled class will remain the entitled class.
Define entitled class.

There are kids that are born into a family of farmers. When they graduate, they start working on the farm. Would you consider them entitled or is that term solely based on a scale of your own bitterness?
 

Lejina

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
<Bronze Donator>
2,914
4,247
74d 14h 58m
The standardized test strategy works in Korea because higher education is culturally important across the board.

In the US you have a large segment of the population that's straight up against education in general and some even qualify higher learning institutions as liberal (as if that's supposed to be an insult). A massive test isn't going to motivate people who are already dry heaving at the thought of getting an education. It's just going to give them yet another convenient excuse for not caring/hating school.

The Master with his TED on grit is on something. Success at school is largely dependent on the desire/ability to stick with something long term to reach a long term goal. This shit just doesnt float in a culture of quick cash and instant gratification.
 

Xequecal

Karen
10,938
-3,447
145d 22h 56m
Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves, how many of us would have actually made it into the advanced placement courses/track if we would have been tested in late middle school with a make it/break it test.

I know perfectly well that I was an animal in middle school, there is no way I would have passed a test, I would not have gone on to college, I would not be where I am today. I do not think these tests are the way to go.
You're missing the point. The test isn't there to prove you learned the material. That's secondary. With the amount of studying they do in SK, learning the material well is a given. They'd have learned it with a fifth of that effort.

The purpose of the test is to determine which students are smart/hardworking enough to deserve a high place in society. That's why there is so much obsessive studying, its not about learning it's about proving you're better than everyone else. That test is basically the 98% students getting relegated into the dregs while the 99.5% students get the good jobs.

If some kids say fuck it, it has done its job of identifying who the losers are.
 

Corndog

Golden Knight of the Realm
500
79
4d 17h 22m
My experiences were different in school. My first problem was in middle school, there were HUGE overlaps in what was being taught. 6-8th grade was the Holocaust in history class every year. 6th and 7th social studies was just memorizing states/countries and capitals.

I was interested in the holocaust, learned a bunch. Even at that age I didn't find the need to know where every state/country was on the map. Guess what, I did what I had to do to past test but don't remember the information now.

Then there was math. I was identified to be gifted in math in 4th grade. I was put in advanced math etc, in 5th grade I was doing algebra and geometry. So then 6th grade, middle school comes around, guess what, I'm doing pre algebra. I get ultra bored and barely pass that class, and then do algebra and geometry the same way. I learned it was easier to be the best of your class, then show you were smarter than everyone and move up. The only thing that was fun was the timed tests we took where you'd improve your own score. It was me and 2 other kids competing really and we'd be crushing the rest of the class by at least double the amount of problems solved etc.

Then in middleschool and highschool I had science. Hated it, learned about trees, dirt, volcanos etc. Barely passed any science class I ever took. This I find very funny because now for my career etc, I can't get enough of science. I literally live to read research papers on everything aquatic.

The one thing that I take away from all of my schooling that I deemed worth it? PE and marketing classes. Playing the stock game, running the highschool student store, learning about credit cards etc. I ended up graduating with marketing honors. Best thing I ever did. I also really enjoyed woodshop in middle school and home ec.

Now here is how you solve schooling. Make it fun and let kids choose what they want. Basically you combine homeschooling with social interaction. Every home schooled kid I meet is a level headed genius. And at the same time is a social retard. All the subjects I did "bad" in at school were subjects I was genuinely not interested in. Anything I liked, I would crush the shit out of that subject.

I'd love to see a structure where all the classes each day were electives. Sign up for what you're interested in. So many guys in my highschool would be basically druggy drop outs, except for shop class, where they got half their day in shop. They were 105% dedicated to that class because it meant something to them.

What about english, math etc? These will be taught/learned via subjects they are interested in. But what if they don't learn english? Look at your work place, you probably have adults there where they only learned to speak english in the last 5 years and can do the job better than half your co-workers. We have plenty of people coming out of highschool illiterate basically. Why not at least let them learn something useful while they do their time as opposed to ignoring learning all together.

To the teachers who say they make great lessons and kids don't want to learn etc. Your right, they don't want to learn your lesson. Make every class optional, and those in your class will want to do your lesson plan.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
21,048
28,788
94d 4h 37m
Education would become a lot more effective if parents were paying for it out of their own pocket. You might be on to something!
I guess you just mean paying for it directly rather than indirectly? Because I sure do pay for my kids education out of my own pocket in the form of the property taxes I pay each year, and the donations I make to our school district each year.

Define entitled class.

There are kids that are born into a family of farmers. When they graduate, they start working on the farm. Would you consider them entitled or is that term solely based on a scale of your own bitterness?
I think you know exactly what I mean by entitled class. Those that succeed based on parental advantages and connections, regardless of their intellectual or academic ability. If you want to consider a life on the farm with a job and wealth (such as it is) gifted to them by parental connections success, then have at it.

I don't know exactly how to read the bitterness comment, what am I bitter about exactly?
 

Tmac

Adventurer
<Silver Donator>
4,847
8,001
43d 22h 37m
I guess you just mean paying for it directly rather than indirectly? Because I sure do pay for my kids education out of my own pocket in the form of the property taxes I pay each year, and the donations I make to our school district each year.
I do mean directly, yes. It's human nature to take care of things that you personally invest in. It's a psychologically fact that people do not value publicly funded services in the same way they value paying a mortgage, car payment, grocery bill, etc.

It's the same thing with paying for things with cash versus paying with a credit card. One is concrete, while the other is abstract.


I think you know exactly what I mean by entitled class...I don't know exactly how to read the bitterness comment, what am I bitter about exactly?
No, I don't know what you mean actually and I assumed a lot, which is why I sensed bitterness.

Those that succeed based on parental advantages and connections, regardless of their intellectual or academic ability. If you want to consider a life on the farm with a job and wealth (such as it is) gifted to them by parental connections success, then have at it.
It would seem, correct me if I'm wrong, that you're bitter at people who get help from their parents in the job world. Do you believe that parents should help their kids? Do you believe that parents should be legallybarredfrom helping their kids? Is it only a bad thing if super rich people do it? I'm just trying to understand your view here.

My Grandparents/Uncle own a cattle farm. They're land rich and have pretty nice homes, but they drive busted trucks and older cars. They have to subsidize their farming income by renting storage units. If they were purely farmers, they would most certainly fall below the poverty line. Are they entitled? Is this sort of nepotism bad?
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
21,048
28,788
94d 4h 37m
I do mean directly, yes. It's human nature to take care of things that you personally invest in. It's a psychologically fact that people do not value publicly funded services in the same way they value paying a mortgage, car payment, grocery bill, etc.

It's the same thing with paying for things with cash versus paying with a credit card. One is concrete, while the other is abstract.
I dunno dog, my credit card bill at the end of the month is hardly abstract.





It would seem, correct me if I'm wrong, that you're bitter at people who get help from their parents in the job world. Do you believe that parents should help their kids? Do you believe that parents should be legallybarredfrom helping their kids? Is it only a bad thing if super rich people do it? I'm just trying to understand your view here.
I'm neither bitter at people who get help from their parents nor do I think parents helping their kids should be barred (how would you even do this?) I'm simply commenting that if you were to have concrete educational outcomes based on intellectual ability rather than on "can he pay the tuition at this school? ok good" or "Can his dad put a new wing on our gym? Cool, admit and we'll misreport our SAT medians to get away with it." etc... I don't think the admission standards to most colleges are nearly high enough, and doing a more european-style tiered high school system would probably benefit us. Interpret that as "bitterness" however you like.
 

Grez

Lord Nagafen Raider
515
-345
13d 3h 21m
From a long-time post-secondary student: the classes that I dominated the most in were the ones that had audio-visual pre-recordings of the lecture material that you could download; one professor took it to the next level by changing lectures into an interactive tutorial in order to reinforce the material in the recording. Not everyone learns the same way and I learned the most from these courses and, if I become a professor, I plan follow in those professor's footsteps.
 

Tmac

Adventurer
<Silver Donator>
4,847
8,001
43d 22h 37m
I dunno dog, my credit card bill at the end of the month is hardly abstract.
There's a reason why millions of Americans are in debt to credit card companies. Spending money with a plastic card is abstract. Government spending is abstract. Just look at the national debt.

Obviously the bill is less abstract, but you're not holding that in your hand when you buy things. Red herring harder...

I'm neither bitter at people who get help from their parents nor do I think parents helping their kids should be barred (how would you even do this?) I'm simply commenting that if you were to have concrete educational outcomes based on intellectual ability rather than on "can he pay the tuition at this school? ok good" or "Can his dad put a new wing on our gym? Cool, admit and we'll misreport our SAT medians to get away with it." etc...
You want concrete educational outcomes on an incredibly abstract process? Good luck with that.

As far as your gym example, that's pretty out there. Do you realize the statistical rarity of that happening? Do you realize how few people have money comparable to what the government pours into the public university system? The odds of some daddy making a donation that keeps anyone from getting an education are astronomical.

And accusing Universities of lying about their own statistics to prove your own point is equally ridiculous.

I don't think the admission standards to most colleges are nearly high enough, and doing a more european-style tiered high school system would probably benefit us. Interpret that as "bitterness" however you like.
Admission standards aren't low for the sake of being low. They're low so that universities can "culturally diversify" and maintain whatever quotas they've established internally.

What does "european-style tiered high school system" even mean?
 

Tmac

Adventurer
<Silver Donator>
4,847
8,001
43d 22h 37m
words that avoid pointed questions
For the record, I'm giving an effort to understand where you're coming from and asking questions that require clarification, but you're not engaging.

Instead you're using frustratingly vague terms like, european-style tiered high school system, to establish yourself in even murkier waters...
 

Erronius

Elder shitposter of R'lyeh
<Gold Donor>
12,946
24,730
79d 16h 29m
I can't remember the "Dirty Jobs" guy's name atm, but he had a really good point with what he had to say about hands-on and technical jobs. I've always felt that young people have been pushed towards careers like Law and Business because of the idea that everyone needs to push for $$$, but FFS the last thing we need is more people with degrees like that (IMHO of course). People just go for certain degrees simply to get a degree.

Ah yeah, Mike Rowe (can't believe I had to Google). This one hit me kind of hard in a personal way - I've spent many years as a skilled laborer racking up a variety of bodily aches and pains and I don't have much to show for it (the last 6-8 years was rough though, and I was already feeling the economy tightening well before most anyone else had).



I haven't seen this video yet but I noticed that he spoke at the SkillsUSA 2013 shindig. If I'd had time a week or so ago I would have gone to a class on mentoring (iirc) for them through school but I didn't find out until the day before.
frown.png


 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
21,048
28,788
94d 4h 37m
For the record, I'm giving an effort to understand where you're coming from and asking questions that require clarification, but you're not engaging.

Instead you're using frustratingly vague terms like, european-style tiered high school system, to establish yourself in even murkier waters...
If you don't know how the european high school system is different from ours, perhaps you should educate yourself? Start with Germany.

Secondly, ask better questions. I'm not even sure what you're asserting or asking that I should be refuting/agreeing with/answering.
 

Heylel

Trakanon Raider
3,591
421
If you want to know what state governments are taking a hard look at, visit Coursera or Udacity. I can absolutely promise you that more money and attention is being heaped on MOOC-style classroom experiences at the postsecondary level than any other option. There are a lot of factors driving the push, not least of which is the private sector pushing technology platforms to support learning, but the simple fact is that state budgets aren't what they used to be. Public universities used to be genuinely public, and the lion's share of their operating budget came from state tax receipts. I'm talking 60-80%. These days, less than half of a university's budget is supported through taxes.

Ultimately, the budget issue frames all of this. Universities are incredibly expensive enterprises, and falling state support means rising tuition costs for students. This is not a matter of greed. Universities are cutting to the bone all over the country to try and keep tuition under control, but you eventually reach a point where programs cannot be further cut. That's why states are so excited by MOOCs. They're an opportunity to divest education of the dorms, the campuses, the facility management, the commuter needs, etc. and focus on just the learning. I am not optimistic that this format will truly work for everyone, but if it broadens the accessibility of education then it's worth giving it a try. The whole point is to make things more affordable across the board: for the student *and* the college.
 

Tmac

Adventurer
<Silver Donator>
4,847
8,001
43d 22h 37m
If you don't know how the european high school system is different from ours, perhaps you should educate yourself? Start with Germany.

Secondly, ask better questions. I'm not even sure what you're asserting or asking that I should be refuting/agreeing with/answering.
I would say troll harder, but you're probably being honest. In which case, I'm just going to ignore you...
 

Troll_sl

shitlord
1,703
5
0
Desire really is the issue, imo. I saw it in classmates, I saw it in myself. I wasn't the smartest kid in my class, but I certainly wasn't the dumbest either. My problem was a complete lack of motivation and no sense of what I wanted to do with the education I was getting. Also the inability for schools to cater (however much a pipe dream that is) to my own interests didn't help.

There needs to be some kind of system that engages those interests kids have. Be it just one period a day, fuck, a week, that allows the student to learn about things they might want to do and what it takes to do get there. It might be what's needed to motivate them to take the rest of their education seriously.
 

Troll_sl

shitlord
1,703
5
0
If you want to know what state governments are taking a hard look at, visit Coursera or Udacity. I can absolutely promise you that more money and attention is being heaped on MOOC-style classroom experiences at the postsecondary level than any other option. There are a lot of factors driving the push, not least of which is the private sector pushing technology platforms to support learning, but the simple fact is that state budgets aren't what they used to be. Public universities used to be genuinely public, and the lion's share of their operating budget came from state tax receipts. I'm talking 60-80%. These days, less than half of a university's budget is supported through taxes.

Ultimately, the budget issue frames all of this. Universities are incredibly expensive enterprises, and falling state support means rising tuition costs for students. This is not a matter of greed. Universities are cutting to the bone all over the country to try and keep tuition under control, but you eventually reach a point where programs cannot be further cut. That's why states are so excited by MOOCs. They're an opportunity to divest education of the dorms, the campuses, the facility management, the commuter needs, etc. and focus on just the learning. I am not optimistic that this format will truly work for everyone, but if it broadens the accessibility of education then it's worth giving it a try. The whole point is to make things more affordable across the board: for the student *and* the college.
As someone that's been getting heavily involved in MOOCs, I can say that until the techniques and technology get better, they're only going to be able to supplement in-classroom learning, not replace it. And even then, I don't think there's ever going to be a true replacement to the in-person, student-teacher relationship.