EPTThe paradox of schools and universities in America - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sgany
United Kingdom790 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 24 2011 07:48 micronesia wrote: I can. I'm not going to try to make the public ed system to be some paragon of awesome, but Waiting for Superman did a terrible job of making a case that the system is in bad shape. Most people just don't realize this. Surprisingly accurate. I'm contractually obligated to work a little over 7 hours a school day. This year I'm working almost double that. Much of my work is for students who don't give a shit no matter what I try. There are few people in this world who can keep it up for a whole career... I'm just lucky this isn't my typical year as a teacher. Good luck sir. I'm not sure what makes this year different from the rest but keep fighting the good fight. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On September 24 2011 07:48 micronesia wrote: I can. I'm not going to try to make the public ed system to be some paragon of awesome, but Waiting for Superman did a terrible job of making a case that the system is in bad shape. Most people just don't realize this. Surprisingly accurate. I'm contractually obligated to work a little over 7 hours a school day. This year I'm working almost double that. Much of my work is for students who don't give a shit no matter what I try. There are few people in this world who can keep it up for a whole career... I'm just lucky this isn't my typical year as a teacher. It is a shame, my high school had something like 5000 students, large school due to consolidation of other high schools in the area avg class size was like 32 34ish something like that, and there was a stark difference between the energy of students and teachers comparing one of my random classes to my ap classes. Trying to teach people who would rather be else where seems like an exhausting venture, while teaching those who are attentive and responsive seems quite rewarding. Ofc the ap teachers who were there, been there for a very long time and worked to get such nice classes, which as a newer teacher i'd imagine that the new guy gets stuck with the classes that are less about teaching and more about keeping some in line,(i went to a school with active gang's in the area, in the beginning of the year we'd have a list of shit we would not wear due to fights and crap, worst parts were the parents who sue the on campus police and the school because they man handled their children after they bought shit like brass knuckles and crap to school to start fights.) | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
| ||
|
RedJustice
United States1004 Posts
Our universities on the other hand are segregated by merit (and I would venture to say very rarely by money), not location (location segregation carries inherent wealth and racial segregations with it which contribute to the issues in lower levels of education). Colleges which to attract the best and the brightest to add to their prestige and get more money for their programs. As a result they strive to improve their offerings and opportunities (as opposed to primary/secondary school which are guaranteed students). Students are also competing with each other for these schools, so that the best students end up at the best schools the majority of the time, which is win for everyone. Despite what everyone says, money tends not to be the limiting factor of higher education in America. In general you can afford exactly what you worked for. If you did not work particularly hard in high school and end up going to a community college because you have to raise your grades before you will be excepted at the state school-- you will be able to afford the community college classes with an entry level wage, or some small savings. If you did pretty well in school, you will probably be able to get some small scholarships to assist you with the cost of a state school. Impoverished students receive aid relative to the money their families make to assist more. If you worked extremely hard and pushed yourself beyond what is expected of you (which is entirely independent of the school system you are in-- you can study for AP exams on your own without a class, and go to another school to take them-- you can pursue your interests on your own time and work on projects that can be entered in fairs or competitions, etc), you will get into a top school and be eligible for a wide range of merit based scholarships, and if you are quite poor, not have to pay anything because of it. In other countries it seems there is a great deal of social pressure and responsibility to do well in your primary and secondary school. Teachers are more valued and respected, and parents are more vested in getting their kids to work hard. The children end up being overall more serious about their education as well. However, it seems a lot of places do not have the massive university infrastructure the US has because there is so much less competition. Schools are free, there are fewer choices of where to attend, and because many top schools are already established as being in the US, it's harder for foreign schools to break into that. Top students from other countries keep leaving to come to American universities. As long as our top schools have the best students, they will be able to present better opportunities and accomplishments to future students, and continue to keep them coming. | ||
|
gurrpp
United States437 Posts
For primary education in the US you have three realistic choices: private education, charter schools, and public schools. Private schools are great if you can afford them. They have great facilities, there's often some degree of flexibility in terms of what interests you want to pursue, and you get tons of personal attention. I didn't actually attend a private school, but my parents were considering sending me to one. Charters schools offer a lot of the same things private schools offer, but they usually have terrible facilities and almost no choice in terms of curriculum. This is the kind of school I attended most of my primary education. Public schools offer basic facilities, a great deal of choice in curriculum, but you end up learning next to nothing in class. Personally, I think charter schools show the most promise. Most of their shortcomings are from lack of funding. My school didn't have any sort of science or computer lab, library, or sports equipment. There wasn't enough faculty to teach elective classes, besides language or offer separate AP classes. Edit: To give you an idea of the size of the school, the graduating class was about 40 students. | ||
|
CookieMaker
Canada880 Posts
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world? Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox? Something that may alter your perception of this was brought up in a similar topic on TL, regarding educational reforms. One of the biggest causes of the low effectiveness of public schooling is standardized testing. Many studies have been done on this topic, most notably one that describes how "teaching-to-the-test" is killing creative thinking and critical decision making in youths. University reputations, however, are more often based on the reputations of their programs and professors. The entrants for universities are pulled from multiple pools, international and private schools included. | ||
|
wesbare
United States35 Posts
While I agree that our national public school system needs to continue to work hard to improve its reputation, it is unfair to say that it "sucks" across the board. That is too general a statement. I personally believe public school teachers are handicapped, handcuffed really, by ridiculous and ever progressive (ever liberal...) PC legislation that forces them to teach from bias curriculum. The history text books I use for my classes are secular and PC, so I get to see firsthand the oversimplifications and misleading statements they sometimes use. In their defense, it is difficult to write a proper history text book that states the facts without upsetting at least someone or some group who doesn't feel the author has interpreted those facts fairly. Authors have worldviews and biases, and so do I. Public schools have their challenges and their failures, but are not ALL bad. I believe the heart of the problem lies with parenting, not schooling. Parents are a child's primary teachers. They can't expect to dump their kids at school and hope they will build the character, discipline, and life skills that are not being taught/enforced at home. But teachers have to deal with both: 1) students who get discipline and love at home; and 2) students who may not get either. In my experience as a teacher, understanding a student's background and life at home offers incredible insight into their motivation and performance at school academically and socially. | ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
On September 24 2011 07:45 Wuster wrote: I don't see Illinois in that name ;-). It is a rule of thumb, but I haven't seen any exceptions yet. oh my bad, i thought you meant state or city lol. nice rule then. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
Also American universities charge much higher fees than others so they have a lot more money to work with. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 24 2011 11:21 CookieMaker wrote: Something that may alter your perception of this was brought up in a similar topic on TL, regarding educational reforms. One of the biggest causes of the low effectiveness of public schooling is standardized testing. Many studies have been done on this topic, most notably one that describes how "teaching-to-the-test" is killing creative thinking and critical decision making in youths. University reputations, however, are more often based on the reputations of their programs and professors. The entrants for universities are pulled from multiple pools, international and private schools included. And the reality is it's not the professors that fuel great education, but often the students themselves. Most professors are highly knowledgeable, some are even geniuses, but they care more about their own work and research than actually teaching in any exceptional or engaging way. When you put a group of hyper-competitive overachievers together, they're going to push each other and teach themselves. | ||
|
Weebem-Na
United States221 Posts
| ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
Your op is more of a paradox than the idea o.o | ||
|
wesbare
United States35 Posts
On September 24 2011 12:01 Defacer wrote: And the reality is it's not the professors that fuel great education, but often the students themselves. Most professors are highly knowledgeable, some are even geniuses, but they care more about their own work and research than actually teaching in any exceptional or engaging way. When you put a group of hyper-competitive overachievers together, they're going to push each other and teach themselves. That was not at all my experience. Most of my university profs were excellent teachers who engaged and cared about their students. I can think of at least 7 professors who would know my wife and I by name if they saw us today. I graduated in '07 and she did in '08. I believe you that many professors fit the description you gave (some of your profs perhaps?), but of course not all are like that. Some actually like teaching. | ||
|
Synapze
Canada563 Posts
Living, Money, Opportunity. USA has the best of everything as long as you're in the top of your field. | ||
]343[
United States10328 Posts
| ||
|
Mysticesper
United States1183 Posts
You can find these on any university website im sure, if you look. Here is mine: http://www.montana.edu/opa/facts/quick.html#Demo | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 24 2011 12:08 wesbare wrote: That was not at all my experience. Most of my university profs were excellent teachers who engaged and cared about their students. I can think of at least 7 professors who would know my wife and I by name if they saw us today. I graduated in '07 and she did in '08. I believe you that many professors fit the description you gave (some of your profs perhaps?), but of course not all are like that. Some actually like teaching. You're right, that's too broad a generalization. I can think of three or four profs that I greatly appreciated that would remember me as well. Bear in mind I went to an art and design school. So many of the profs I had were not engaged or even current with the trends or technical advancements in their respective specialities. They were teaching on the side for the money, basically. I learned a lot, but I know my fellow students were huge drivers in my self-education, so-to-speak. | ||
|
Swagtacular
United States101 Posts
| ||
| ||
