It should be noted, i wasn't that great of a student - i never really learned to study, since i didn't have to (used to have a pretty good memory). i never really tried at school (trying is the first step to failure).
i guess it was lucky for me teachers were so lazy that they loved multiple choice tests. i was above average on those. You'd be surprised how many curves an average-ish student like me that i set or was near the top of. Once you realize the sentence structure is almost aways the same you can find keywords fast, then associate them with answers. You know the person who turns in their test in 5 minutes? That was me.
There was a 120 T/F, multiple choice Anthropology test that i turned in under 4 minutes and got the second highest score in the class.
i didn't have to put up with modern train wreck teaching techniques like "common core".
Are Schools Really Effective
Of course, i give a question where there is no Boolean answer. In some ways schools are effective. The literacy rate of the US is fairly high, and that probably wouldn't have been the case without compulsory education. i guess you learn some things in school that are somewhat useful - like mathematics, reading, and writing (to some extent - though who really cares what a gerund is or diagramming sentences).
Schools say they teach critical thinking skills; however the way schools go over things repeatedly is a little bit of a disincentive to actually learn. Most of the time you just regurgitate whatever answer you think the teach wants to hear. i know schools believe that you learn by rote and repetition (and maybe you do) but that should not constitute most of what schooling is. That is assuming the student isn't bored to apathy by boring lectures. Bueller.. Bueller.. anyone.
Schools also give students too little intellectual credit - it seems they spend the majority of the time rehashing stuff the students (or should have if teachers did their jobs) was already taught. It appears that schools are designed for the least capable students at the expense of the rest.
There are many more successful countries that do not assign homework. There is a debate whether or not homework is an effective learning technique or just mindless busywork. After a while, you learn that you only need to focus on what you need to pass the test they give you. Is that really how you want schools to educate the population?
There is another wrinkle once you get into college. College is supposed to prepare the student for a successful career. At least when i went to college, most of the time was dedicated to teaching theory. i guess theory is important to know, however once you graduate it seems to be less important. There was not enough hands-on practical teaching through simulated or real-life experience at the college level.
Once you get into the real world (and yes kids, it is in your best interests to avoid that as long as possible), things do not exactly work the way you thought it would in school (or they lead you to believe). Schools told me that if i worked hard and study, somehow you will be successful.
Many of the entry-level jobs (if you can find them) i have seen are about giving grunt work to the graduate. After a while, it doesn't seem like know the theories you learned in college seem to amount for anything. In many cases, you are just manipulating data with computer programs and are lightly trained on the job to do what you need to do.
Many jobs out there do not truly require a degree. They may require you to have one, but you could learn most of the stuff on the job.
Department of Education
i'll probably touch on this later (maybe in government), but here is my view of the Department of Education. Namely, it should not exist. Education is the purview of the states/local governments. There should be no federal cabinet agency. The federal government should not be involved in student loans at all.
Education After Dark: Sex Ed
So, i said that schools should not impart the government's moral values on the student. Here is a wrinkle (aren't there always at least a couple) - sex ed. In many ways, this is a moral issue that should be handled by the parents. Unfortunately for the parents, this is difficult to discuss. Maybe this is due to the culture (and the culture's sense of repression) - nudity and sex are veiled in secrecy.
In many European countries, the views and discussions on sexuality come easier (cultures are just more open and sex is just less taboo to discuss). So, the government, seeing this as a public health and economic issue added to the curriculum. It is true that teen pregnancy can be a costly social an economic program (mainly what sex ed it about).
However, in this instance, the conservative moral approach may not be the best one. Showing basic anatomy and preaching abstinence is a flawed approach. The approach they used when i was in school was the scare approach - mostly STDs and pregnancy. If they did say anything about sex it involved being in a loving committed relationship (especially marriage).
Students in their teenage years are trying to find themselves and being somewhat controlled by their hormones. It is morals/control versus natural impulses. Even the best-behaved teenager is susceptible to temptation and experimentation.
This is based mostly on male birth control. It is better for the teenager to know about how to practically use birth control when the situation arises than be told "don't do it". The best way to do that might be to make it a part of their routine (repetition). Putting a condom on a banana (or another analog) is not the same as the real thing, in the heat of passion.
This sounds creepy to me, but the student should know how to use condoms (at least) in the correct way on a non-analog (if only there was some way to objectively judge whether it was used correctly). Females should know how to use the male birth control also.
Assume the student will be having sex and adjust accordingly (after 15.5). Maybe there should be at least a cursory example of the mechanics and acts like self-gratification (not necessarily taught, but information available) covered. There is a problem of thinking sex as somehow dirty and immoral, rather than a natural part of life (which can theoretically be enjoyable). Yes, sex can probably be special with someone you care deeply.
i'm not saying make sex education a lab class - i would've killed for that in high school. Definitely don't promote sex on campus. Also, sex education has traditionally been about pregnancy. The <10% alphabet group won't get pregnant from their actions - so they probably shouldn't teach however gay "sex" (not definitionally sex) works. They should be able to hand out information if asked though.
Is that what they still teach, i don't know. Also, i was brought up in a strict-ish Mormon household.
Was George Michael lying when he said "sex is natural, sex if fun, sex is best when it's one on one"?
No comments:
Post a Comment