|
Post by miaim on Nov 17, 2007 3:37:44 GMT -5
It all starts with health care for everybody and good education for everybody. Unfortunately in the US, teachers get paid garbage in crappy school districts...and thus have no incentive going there. agreed, but that would mean forcing the better off to share with the worse off, as the better off won't share unless forced to by taxation.... and we can't have none of that now, can we? Although many people have claimed that U.S. public schools are underfunded, the evidence shows that that claim is not true. According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with Switzerland when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000 (in U.S. currency)." link to studythis doesn't address the wide gap between what is spent in rich and poor school districts...in many cases, spending per pupil in rich school districts is double what they spend in poor school districts.... some examples, all for public/state schools: The top 10 percent of public systems spend an average of $12,705 on each student, while the bottom 10 percent spend $5,746.www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/hits/041220ct.htmPer-pupil spending in California ranged from $4,806 to a high of $34,279.www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2006/03/26/news/state/iq_3361910.txtthere is endless research on this...google: public school spending per student, by district, gap.... One has to wonder why some people buck the trend though. Why can some succeed and move upward on the social scale despite having a poor start? very few do...in fact, so few that they are statistically insignificant...not that some people don't leap up several socioeconomic classes in a lifetime, it just doesn't happen very often or with any regularity...everytime someone does, it's a small miracle that defies the law of social immobility that rules the rich, developed world.... peace
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Nov 17, 2007 10:18:25 GMT -5
Also, there should be more pay for science teachers. Science majors have much better economic options and job options than English and history majors...so schools are foolish to make the pay equal. Pay science and math teachers what they are worth. I probably don't have any credibility as someone who is studying something "useless," but I'll jump in anyway. Not to be nitpicky, but reading/writing is a foundation block of education. There's a reason we evaluate a population's education level with its literacy rate. No matter how much contempt you have for liberal arts, English teachers are just as essential as scientists. I'll be honest with you, I'm not comfortable with the idea of funding students that want to learn something that has no practical application, just for their own personal growth. I'm speaking of those who want to cultivate themselves just for the sake of it. More power to them, but if it's not with the idea of getting a job related to what they studied, thus being taxed and giving back, I don't buy it. However, you must understand that society does not only need people that work in business or scientific fields. Sure, the students that will study in those fields are more likely to find a job easily. You have to keep in mind that not everyone is suited for sciences. Trust me, I know I'd have a more secure career path if I were still studying sciences. I tried forcing myself to choose a science major. Hey, I used to be one of those kids like you that would scoff at the social science students and say they did nothing. But no matter what, even if you throw the best science and math teachers at students, you can't force people to like/be good at it. I'll concede it's difficult to know where you stop giving hand-outs to students in fields where job placement isn't 100%. Keep in mind that most of the students in the non scientific faculties ARE going to school to get a job in their fields though, even if it won't fall in their lap.
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Nov 17, 2007 18:08:04 GMT -5
^ I used the word useless in jest.
I agree with everything you said.
Besides, English skills are also required in scientific fields. Employers expect lab reports to be flawless... this extends to redaction.
Seejayeff, I'm curious, what place do you think arts and other non-scientific subjects should have in school curriculum?
Funny, all my science professors would penalise students for grammar/spelling mistakes. I wonder what they would have done without proper English teachers...
|
|
|
Post by jewbird on Nov 17, 2007 19:14:13 GMT -5
And failing that, there's always grad school.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 18, 2007 0:15:52 GMT -5
Also, there should be more pay for science teachers. Science majors have much better economic options and job options than English and history majors...so schools are foolish to make the pay equal. Pay science and math teachers what they are worth. I probably don't have any credibility as someone who is studying something "useless," but I'll jump in anyway. Not to be nitpicky, but reading/writing is a foundation block of education. There's a reason we evaluate a population's education level with its literacy rate. No matter how much contempt you have for liberal arts, English teachers are just as essential as scientists. I'll be honest with you, I'm not comfortable with the idea of funding students that want to learn something that has no practical application, just for their own personal growth. I'm speaking of those who want to cultivate themselves just for the sake of it. More power to them, but if it's not with the idea of getting a job related to what they studied, thus being taxed and giving back, I don't buy it. However, you must understand that society does not only need people that work in business or scientific fields. Sure, the students that will study in those fields are more likely to find a job easily. You have to keep in mind that not everyone is suited for sciences. Trust me, I know I'd have a more secure career path if I were still studying sciences. I tried forcing myself to choose a science major. Hey, I used to be one of those kids like you that would scoff at the social science students and say they did nothing. But no matter what, even if you throw the best science and math teachers at students, you can't force people to like/be good at it. I'll concede it's difficult to know where you stop giving hand-outs to students in fields where job placement isn't 100%. Keep in mind that most of the students in the non scientific faculties ARE going to school to get a job in their fields though, even if it won't fall in their lap. Sure, there are things to be gained from being an Art history or English major. But is a job necessarily one of those things? Unless you are going to law school, what kind of job can a Renaissance history major find? Anyways, I agree that both are necessary things to have. Communication is essential. And both encompass the same things. Some of the innovation Bioengineers are creating can be a work of art, etc. But there comes a point where we have to train kids on a specific job to do, rather than just knowledge. Application is the key. If the school can find a way to focus the major in a future job, I'm all for that. BTW, I'm a Bio major and am thoroughly enjoying my Environmental Policy course, where writing and science is combined. Maybe the majors need to be combined more?
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 18, 2007 0:22:12 GMT -5
^ I used the word useless in jest. I agree with everything you said. Besides, English skills are also required in scientific fields. Employers expect lab reports to be flawless... this extends to redaction. Seejayeff, I'm curious, what place do you think arts and other non-scientific subjects should have in school curriculum? Funny, all my science professors would penalise students for grammar/spelling mistakes. I wonder what they would have done without proper English teachers... Arts should be kept as minors and lower division courses. English minors or emphasis on legal writing, scientific journal writing majors. A more scientific approach in History majors...archeology. Of course, I'm talking about what tax payers should pay for a students full tuition. But if a student feels he needs to learn how to make a movie or draw for his/her whole collegiate career, I'm weary of forcing tax payers to pay for that child's full education.
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Nov 18, 2007 0:56:57 GMT -5
^ I used the word useless in jest. I agree with everything you said. Besides, English skills are also required in scientific fields. Employers expect lab reports to be flawless... this extends to redaction. Seejayeff, I'm curious, what place do you think arts and other non-scientific subjects should have in school curriculum? Funny, all my science professors would penalise students for grammar/spelling mistakes. I wonder what they would have done without proper English teachers... Arts should be kept as minors and lower division courses. English minors or emphasis on legal writing, scientific journal writing majors. A more scientific approach in History majors...archeology. Of course, I'm talking about what tax payers should pay for a students full tuition. But if a student feels he needs to learn how to make a movie or draw for his/her whole collegiate career, I'm weary of forcing tax payers to pay for that child's full education. How about in high school? Do you think we should quite obviously favor sciences over the other subjects? See, I don't know if it's due to the socio-economic background of the kids I went to high school with, but we were all very biased in favor of sciences. The curriculum had nothing to do with it, perhaps it was our parents that had ingrained in us that we could only get jobs if we went down the science route. The way the education system works in Quebec is that high school goes up to grade 11, then we have two years of cegep, which is basically 2 years of field-specific classes and some gen ed before university. Cegep education is free and paid with tax dollars. Only a third of students finish in the normal 2 years. Why? Many do fool around, and in my opinion, these are students that shouldn't be allowed to go to cegep. However, many are serious students. Why do they stay longer? Because they chose the science program. Then realised it wasn't for them. I know a girl that switched after her third semester. That's a lot of tax dollars wasted. Sure, you can say that we're expected to choose at a young age and that people genuinely make mistakes. However, most of the students that ended up switching didn't like sciences in the first place, but they chose to study it because it opened more doors. Right from the get-go, they knew they didn't really want to pursue it. Now, imagine if curriculum is devised in such a way that sciences have the edge. More students will end up choosing that path, when they shouldn't even consider it. There are some things you just can't force, and if you try to, you're flushing money down the drain.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 18, 2007 19:36:23 GMT -5
Arts should be kept as minors and lower division courses. English minors or emphasis on legal writing, scientific journal writing majors. A more scientific approach in History majors...archeology. Of course, I'm talking about what tax payers should pay for a students full tuition. But if a student feels he needs to learn how to make a movie or draw for his/her whole collegiate career, I'm weary of forcing tax payers to pay for that child's full education. How about in high school? Do you think we should quite obviously favor sciences over the other subjects? See, I don't know if it's due to the socio-economic background of the kids I went to high school with, but we were all very biased in favor of sciences. The curriculum had nothing to do with it, perhaps it was our parents that had ingrained in us that we could only get jobs if we went down the science route. The way the education system works in Quebec is that high school goes up to grade 11, then we have two years of cegep, which is basically 2 years of field-specific classes and some gen ed before university. Cegep education is free and paid with tax dollars. Only a third of students finish in the normal 2 years. Why? Many do fool around, and in my opinion, these are students that shouldn't be allowed to go to cegep. However, many are serious students. Why do they stay longer? Because they chose the science program. Then realised it wasn't for them. I know a girl that switched after her third semester. That's a lot of tax dollars wasted. Sure, you can say that we're expected to choose at a young age and that people genuinely make mistakes. However, most of the students that ended up switching didn't like sciences in the first place, but they chose to study it because it opened more doors. Right from the get-go, they knew they didn't really want to pursue it. Now, imagine if curriculum is devised in such a way that sciences have the edge. More students will end up choosing that path, when they shouldn't even consider it. There are some things you just can't force, and if you try to, you're flushing money down the drain. US works differently. You go to high school for 4 years, then go straight to college. In HS, you have the option of earning some collegiate credits. As for my statement of the sciences, I'm also referring to mathematics, accounting, engineering, computing, IT, etc. Practical majors that have practical applications. Maybe put degrees where you particularly train in doing social work, or counseling, etc for those more in the language arts. I don't think our colleges prepare students for the workforce. There needs to be more practicality than theory in my opinion. That's why there are many college graduates in the US who go out and are 100K in debt and cannot find work. That is why I really like the US Community College system. They train nurses, radiologists, mechanics, a/c repair, etc. Everything is practical to getting you a job in the real world.
|
|
Mr Brad Pitt
Full Member
Social Retard Spreading Sh.i.t
Posts: 467
|
Post by Mr Brad Pitt on Nov 22, 2007 21:03:47 GMT -5
One could argue that if it was on YOUR dime, you'd choose more wisely, miss less class, and work harder upon completion to pay off the loans you needed to get to the finish line. Worked for me. I'm OK with this point of view. There are people who receive scolarships from the government and never actually go study. But what about the others, who form the majority? There are people who are obliged to get a loan even though they're living in a welfare state... So... free education for all? That'd be the best. Unfortunately, it's currently some kind of utopia. The government, as well as private companies, should fund universities as much as possible. Students would contribute to the rest of the bill. And there's NO way for some majors to be funded by the state, while some seen as "useless" wouldn't be. That's the best way to lose knowledge. To lose the sense of an "universal" education, as opposed to an "on market demand education".
|
|
|
Post by Pushnpull on Nov 23, 2007 2:52:09 GMT -5
Can we at least agree that elementary students should have their own textbooks, papers and pens. I mentioned in another post how I worked at one inner city predominately black school and three students had to share one textbook. There weren't enough pencils to go around. No air conditioning,,etc.
Contrast that to a shcool I worked @ on Chicago's northshore. Beautiful campus, new books, computer lab, enough pencils to probably circle the globe.
Made me sick to my stomach.
Free but very unequal education.
|
|
Mr Brad Pitt
Full Member
Social Retard Spreading Sh.i.t
Posts: 467
|
Post by Mr Brad Pitt on Nov 23, 2007 12:37:51 GMT -5
Then there's the question about how the common money is redistributed.
|
|
|
Post by delorian on Nov 23, 2007 22:27:27 GMT -5
I think the American system is good. It allows one freedom to choose what path they want, and is set up so one has to earn their way into college. In other systems, students are placed in tracks, some to college, some to vocational schools -- this takes away freedom to choose I think.
|
|
|
Post by jewbird on Nov 25, 2007 18:59:57 GMT -5
On the other hand, it also provides the incentive to excel.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 26, 2007 23:21:24 GMT -5
I think the American system is good. It allows one freedom to choose what path they want, and is set up so one has to earn their way into college. In other systems, students are placed in tracks, some to college, some to vocational schools -- this takes away freedom to choose I think. Are we really allowed to choose though? In high school, there are no vocational opportunities besides limited auto classes and a few woodshop courses. The US education system looks down upon skilled manual labor. Wouldn't many kids be better off learning how to fix air conditioning units than learning about how red is symbolic in Romeo and Juliet?
|
|
|
Post by Pushnpull on Nov 27, 2007 11:56:47 GMT -5
In the American system kids are actually put into certain tracks WHETHER THEY KNOW IT OR NOT. Sometimes starting in elementary school. Some are placed in the votech track, others college prep, while my own sister was placed in SPECIAL ED. You know with the kids who get on the yellow bus. She had problems learning when she was younger as a child but grew out of it. Unfortunately instead of the school system taking her out she was kept it until the 12 th grade. The school system kept her on the special ed track.
Thankfully she shined in college. She was told college wasn't for her, was later told to pursue vocational training.
She flipped the counselor the proverbial bird and enrolled anyway.
She now has her degree in Chemistry and biology. Not bad for a special ed student! She is now a teacher.
Unfortunately she is one of the few who excelled. I wonder how many brights students tracked at such an early age fail to live up to their potential.
On the flipside I was put in gifted classes at a young age. But although I was reading 12th grade level books while in 1st grade.....I was still 1st grade in math. I struggled horribly in the gifted classes. Wheras my friend in the "normal" math class excelled because it was taught to her level. In high school I had to be tutored in math while my friend who was in the normal classes ended up taking trig and passing with flying colors.
So much for tracking. I detest math to this day.
One of the nurses I worked with told her teacher she wanted to be a doctor. She was told ,"Honey,you're black you can't be a doctor."
That was only 40 yrs ago. A short span of time really.
Free education to be what they want you to be.
I do have to disagree with you seejayeff. Vocational opportunites should be just as important as the arts. But let's not disregard a well-rounded arts education. It will help to not only understand the how to but the why's as well.
I've done both medic, Lpn and Rn school. The arts and humanities portion of my Rn education that were far removed from nursing I feel helped me with my critical thinking. My Lpn (vocation nurse) taught me how to do certain skils and procedures, but my collegiate education taught me to understand the why's behind it.
|
|