American Slackers
They've added an essay portion to the SAT. This gives me an opportunity to pontificate on the sorry state of the American education system.
Now, don't get me wrong; we currently educate more students than ever before, on less funds. When I was in high school, though, I was either lucky or blessed to have a handful of good teachers. Of the four history teachers, I had the best one two years in a row. If I'd had one of the other two major teachers (as the fourth showed up my senior year), I would have been screwed. They didn't know what in glaven's name they were doing.
Same with English teachers. My freshman English teacher should have been sacked, no two ways about it. My junior and senior English teachers were very good; the former retired after my year, the latter a few years after I graduated. My sophomore year teacher was outstanding for some of the other classes I took from her (public speaking and electronic media), but little of what I learned was of any long-term use to me.
By and large, most of the history and English teachers at my school either didn't know jack about their subject (which I doubt), or didn't know jack about teaching. A lot of the instruction I received, particularly in English and math courses, was aimed at training me on how to pass standardized tests, particularly the asinine tests that my state uses. We have a system whereby your diploma can be augmented by additional "certificates" that are almost completely subjective and arbitrary, and have no weight outside the state.
Now, instead of all this nonsense, wouldn't it make more sense to teach the basics? I'm not talking about cutting every elective or something, but most of the people I graduated with (at least, those who hadn't had courses from those three excellent teachers) and many of the students I'm at university with are completely inept. They can't write, they have next to nothing in the way of reading comprehension.
I think that the changes to the SAT are a good idea. I got a 1240 (out of the original 1600) on my SAT, with 610 in Math and 630 in Reading. How about one little change, though: what if we didn't train kids directly to take these asinine standardized tests in the first place. The effects would be twofold.
First, this would afford teachers more time to teach actual material, instead of how to take tests. If I had to make an educated guess (which is exactly what you people are here for: my educated guesses), I'd guess that you'd actually have higher SAT scores in the long run because you'd be promoting exactly the kind of skills the test is looking for in the first place. It also wouldn't hurt to eliminate classes like poetry or mythology, both of which were offered at my high school; last time I checked, there weren't any real jobs that involved writing poetry.
Second, we should raise the standards for most of our universities. Joints like Harvard and Yale, private schools, can stay as tough as they want to be. My degree from a state university isn't going to be worth the paper it's printed on because they'll let almost anyone in. Now, if you'd raised the standards too much, I might not have been able to get in; but a school should have standards. If someone isn't qualified straight out of high school to go to college, they can go to a community college, or join the military, or do any number of other things to improve their skills and eventually get in.
When my grandparents and great-grandparents were in high school, they learned skills and information that was applicable to the real world; many of the people on my father's side of the family went to university, and most of them got degrees. In those days, you didn't go get a degree because you had to get a degree in order to get a good job; my dad doesn't have a degree, and before he had his current job, he had a very good position with a bank. Nowadays, there's next to no chance of him getting that job without a degree, not because the degree actually means anything, but because our society has shifted to make the degree a de facto requirement for many jobs. That's nonsense.
Bottom line? Instead of teaching students pie-in-the-sky classes and touchy feely crap, and indoctrinating them on how to take standardized tests, high schools should teach the basics and prepare students for the real world.
Colleges and universities, particularly state-run institutions, should maintain a high standard and, at least in the case of my school, take on less students. This would make the students they do accept more elite in the end, because contrary to current kindergarten philosophy, competition is a good thing.
Will any of it happen? Very doubtful.
Thus saith the Fly.
Now, don't get me wrong; we currently educate more students than ever before, on less funds. When I was in high school, though, I was either lucky or blessed to have a handful of good teachers. Of the four history teachers, I had the best one two years in a row. If I'd had one of the other two major teachers (as the fourth showed up my senior year), I would have been screwed. They didn't know what in glaven's name they were doing.
Same with English teachers. My freshman English teacher should have been sacked, no two ways about it. My junior and senior English teachers were very good; the former retired after my year, the latter a few years after I graduated. My sophomore year teacher was outstanding for some of the other classes I took from her (public speaking and electronic media), but little of what I learned was of any long-term use to me.
By and large, most of the history and English teachers at my school either didn't know jack about their subject (which I doubt), or didn't know jack about teaching. A lot of the instruction I received, particularly in English and math courses, was aimed at training me on how to pass standardized tests, particularly the asinine tests that my state uses. We have a system whereby your diploma can be augmented by additional "certificates" that are almost completely subjective and arbitrary, and have no weight outside the state.
Now, instead of all this nonsense, wouldn't it make more sense to teach the basics? I'm not talking about cutting every elective or something, but most of the people I graduated with (at least, those who hadn't had courses from those three excellent teachers) and many of the students I'm at university with are completely inept. They can't write, they have next to nothing in the way of reading comprehension.
I think that the changes to the SAT are a good idea. I got a 1240 (out of the original 1600) on my SAT, with 610 in Math and 630 in Reading. How about one little change, though: what if we didn't train kids directly to take these asinine standardized tests in the first place. The effects would be twofold.
First, this would afford teachers more time to teach actual material, instead of how to take tests. If I had to make an educated guess (which is exactly what you people are here for: my educated guesses), I'd guess that you'd actually have higher SAT scores in the long run because you'd be promoting exactly the kind of skills the test is looking for in the first place. It also wouldn't hurt to eliminate classes like poetry or mythology, both of which were offered at my high school; last time I checked, there weren't any real jobs that involved writing poetry.
Second, we should raise the standards for most of our universities. Joints like Harvard and Yale, private schools, can stay as tough as they want to be. My degree from a state university isn't going to be worth the paper it's printed on because they'll let almost anyone in. Now, if you'd raised the standards too much, I might not have been able to get in; but a school should have standards. If someone isn't qualified straight out of high school to go to college, they can go to a community college, or join the military, or do any number of other things to improve their skills and eventually get in.
When my grandparents and great-grandparents were in high school, they learned skills and information that was applicable to the real world; many of the people on my father's side of the family went to university, and most of them got degrees. In those days, you didn't go get a degree because you had to get a degree in order to get a good job; my dad doesn't have a degree, and before he had his current job, he had a very good position with a bank. Nowadays, there's next to no chance of him getting that job without a degree, not because the degree actually means anything, but because our society has shifted to make the degree a de facto requirement for many jobs. That's nonsense.
Bottom line? Instead of teaching students pie-in-the-sky classes and touchy feely crap, and indoctrinating them on how to take standardized tests, high schools should teach the basics and prepare students for the real world.
Colleges and universities, particularly state-run institutions, should maintain a high standard and, at least in the case of my school, take on less students. This would make the students they do accept more elite in the end, because contrary to current kindergarten philosophy, competition is a good thing.
Will any of it happen? Very doubtful.
Thus saith the Fly.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home