thoughts on academia - Page 2

On January 23 2010 09:58 RANDOMCL wrote:


I hate to be that guy on the Internet, but: try me.

I've been working in the education system for over a decade, taught classes from 2nd grade through graduate level, and have worked closely with multiple school districts across Indiana and Illinois. Pick an aspect of the modern pre-university education system and I'll give you plenty of reasons why it needs help.

I'll list a few really quick, and if you want me to expand on any, I'd be happy to:

Rotating door policy with educators, resulting in weaker course planning.
Suggestions: Educators should spend time in the work environment on a longer trial basis before being hired in as full time, and should TA, etc., at the location prior to taking a full time job. Various other changes could be made but would require larger overalls, such as smaller class sizes, longer planning period/break periods, reworked salaries, etc., but as I said, those require massive system overalls for the most part.

Constant budget reworkings, giving power to recreational activities (i.e. sports) over education after-school programs.
Suggestions: De-emphasize competition in recreational activities in early years, and instead, shift the focus to academic competitiveness. When I was young, it was "cool" to be smart. As I got older, the focus shifted to strongly towards sports (which I heavily participated in but begrudged for the financial burden it places upon other aspects of my education). Funding decisions should not come down to re-grassing a field or replacement of outdated computers. The answer should be obvious.

Over-emphasis on social education during early years, and then a de-emphasis in later years.
Suggestions: During the formative years, education takes a backseat to social education. Students are taught, in early years (in the U.S.), that their interactions with others are more important than learning at a rapid pace. As seen in many other (almost every developed) countries, this line of thinking is very rare. Most countries (specifically, eastern Asian ones) de-emphasize the social aspects of education in early years, and provide students with a rapidly paced pre-junior high level education. Once they reach later years, students are more heavily encouraged to become involved in such programs. This method of education leads to, on the whole, more educated students, who also have an extremely strong tie to their co-workers and employers once they reach the age of employment.

Curriculum changes (changing position of courses from one grade level to another) without scientific basis.

Standardized testing playing too major a role in student-teacher relationship.

Weak psychological and emotional therapy response (not necessarily in school, but once again, student to faculty relationship plays a massive role here, which all ties back to other issues such as the rotating door).

Government funding on the basis of grades (specifically, No Child Left Behind, but there have been plenty of others before it).

Dietary/sanitation issues (both issues vary widely from state to state and policies for each, but still wide enough issues to warrant changes).

I could expand on the other reasons later, but my hands honestly grew tired of typing. I've been working on writing something else all day, but I can edit this later if people desire.

I can provide plenty of resources that actually go into depth on the statistics of both these problems, as well as many of the solutions I provided. It would take more space than most here would want to read, but let me know if you want me to post links, authors, and titles.

On January 23 2010 11:45 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
His assertion that creativity is not rewarded and/or is squashed is 100% true for education under the university level. All of the problems he talks about, specific and general, are present in the US public education system for sure. However, university education, even publicly funded, is drastically different.

On January 23 2010 11:45 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
From the student's perspective: most kids that do well in math etc. are ostracized by their peers who are rewarded for being good at some kind of physical sport! Not only that, but a lot of the time schools spend a ridiculous amount of money (relative to other subjects) on sports (most especially football).

On January 23 2010 11:51 micronesia wrote:

I agree with many of the things you say but not this. It is definitely not even near 100% true for secondary/elementary education although it's certainly not 0% either. University education is not exempt either in my experience.

On November 04 2009 07:14 mahnini wrote:
the fundamental problem isn't with the grading system but the teaching curriculum and philosophy. small assignments distributed over a long period of time that add up to a final grade are incredibly demoralizing for me and i really see it as a way of encouraging mediocre consistency.

one of the classes i am currently taking uses an approach i really like. no assignments aside from 3 projects. lectures outline important parts of the book giving you foundation to build on with reading. you receive no help with projects whatsoever so you actually have to work and think to get the project done, you can't just get stuck and go crawling to professor. this method enables the course to provide the necessary information in lectures and encourages critical thinking without the tediousness of menial assignments.

many courses are far to reliant on the idea of assigning a grade and not focused enough on actual learning.

On November 04 2009 07:33 mahnini wrote:
i guess what i'm trying to say is you shouldn't be tested on whether or not you can complete the assignments, rather, whether you understand the concepts presented in the assignments. i guess that doesn't really make sense when you take into account the current system but a class is for learning and mistakes should be allowed to be made. where you should be tested for understanding are the tests. grading a students learning process seems counter productive when at the end of the class one C student is far more capable than another. though, i supposed that can never be really solved, it can at least be minimalized.

On January 23 2010 12:41 DefMatrixUltra wrote:


At the middle school/high school level, the teachers (or from another perspective, the executive staff like the principal etc.) are the ones in control.

On January 24 2010 01:02 micronesia wrote:

I agree with many of the things you said about the university level, but I still don't see this statement as correct... in control of what? What courses you take? There is much flexibility in MS/HS just like college. Generally, college grants more flexibility but it is not night and day. Between major requirements and general ed core classes you don't get that much choice. In what other ways did you intend your statement above?

On January 25 2010 14:47 DefMatrixUltra wrote:


In control of the entire environment you are in. Many schools these days require uniforms, don't let males grow facial hair, don't let females wear shorts/skirts. Aside from that, there is absolutely 0 flexibility in scheduling. If you are feeling ill, even leaving the room quietly is out of the question in high school - whereas at university, the professor is unlikely to be phased by such a thing.

From all sides, you have others telling you what to do, telling you about the future and why if you don't do this and that, you will end up in a homeless shelter or worse etc. Many students are required to take such classes as gym/physical education even if they have no interest whatsoever - keep in mind this is not an academic subject. You actually have very little decision as to what classes you want to take (do you take advanced math or regular math - decisions!) - this is partly due to different curricula at the pre-university level.

There are a lot of factors that are themselves small, but the sum of the whole is more than enough to take away any kind of resemblance to real independence. One of the biggest problems with high school, however, is that it is almost impossible to fail. This is where the lack of independence really hurts.

Maybe my high school just sucked.

In university, you literally do not have to do anything. In some universities, they don't even allow you to declare a major until your second year. I know a guy who told his parents he was doing a chemical engineering degree. The only course he ever took was scuba diving, and he didn't even go to that course. He failed it and probably learned a life lesson - if only he could have done such a thing during high school, it might not have cost his parents 10k.

On January 25 2010 23:41 Cloud wrote:
Of course schools kill creativity, particularly highschools. They're prisons, or nurseries for older boys if you want. Even if idealized schools with no sindicates, inept teachers, etc. came to reality, it would still be pretty mediocre.

I didn't know a single kid in my classroom that knew what his/her parents did for a living, myself included. 200 years ago that was not the case, of course 200 years ago kids of that age would be working full-time. Now a lot of people wait till they're 21 or even 30. My point is that all this current specialization makes the kids to not know jack about what they are supposed to do with what they are learning now, and it all seems like a waste of time.

And it is a waste of time. 200 years ago kids used to be helpful to their parents, nowadays they are just a burden so school is a good idea to keep kids in one place when the parents can't watch over them.

And what happens in schools? Well teachers don't give a shit any more than the parents do. Teachers "teach" some meaningless (to the kids) facts and that's it; leaving kids to fend for themselves and that's exactly what they do. Kids rule the schools as much as convicts rule the prisons; teachers and prison guards try to do as best as they can to keep their captives in one place and not to kill each other, but then they try to turn a blind eye to everything else.

And this is how kids and convicts rebel and turn against themselves, they form groups and gang on the excluded, highschool becomes the biggest and most disputed fashion contest in the world. The ability to stay at the top does not depend on how smart or right or true you are. But on how well you can climb up. Much like medieval courts, there was nothing better to do than to turn on one another.

And teachers praise this, not the whole disgusting and meaningless process but its end results. Almost always the most popular kid in my class with the teacher was the most popular in the whole grade, these smoothtalkers and peoplepleasers became the role models of the whole school. This can lead to some severe dissatisfaction from the kids in the lower "classes". Their own envy at those hot dogs and their own unwillingness to be 100% like them turns them into very depressed teens or even bigger rebels. And who is surprised at them doing drugs or having sex or even killing themselves when they "are not supposed to".

I'm not gonna lie, my highschool was a living hell for me, I was not thinking about suicide as I am sure plenty of teens have contemplated. And I didn't do any drugs. But I was pretty depressed and if I ever have kids I would never want them to go over the same shit again.

His assertion that creativity is not rewarded and/or is squashed is 100% true for education under the university level. All of the problems he talks about, specific and general, are present in the US public education system for sure. However, university education, even publicly funded, is drastically different.

On January 23 2010 11:45 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
I watched the entire thing. I thought this would be a talk from someone who really understands the education system, but this guy just told a bunch of funny anecdotes that made people laugh.

However, some of the things this guy suggests simply do not work in a rational system without huge setbacks in other areas. He complains that people are discouraged from taking music etc. because they can't get jobs and whatnot. This shows a terrible lack of perspective.

From the parent's perspective: the more extracurricular stuff their kids do, the better. More activities means less time spent doing drugs and drinking and more stuff to put on their resume for university. It also means that their child might discover something they are really good at and love.

From the student's perspective: most kids that do well in math etc. are ostracized by their peers who are rewarded for being good at some kind of physical sport! Not only that, but a lot of the time schools spend a ridiculous amount of money (relative to other subjects) on sports (most especially football).

The other thing is this: why should we teach kids dance in equal proportions to math? Can you use dance to solve every day problems? Does dance enhance people's minds to be able to deal with problem-solving in general?

A corollary to that is this: subjects in which you can be 'wrong' should have an establishment such that they discourage students from being 'wrong'. Maybe it's creative to answer all questions on your math test as '42', but it's not gonna get you anywhere. It's not gonna get you a job. It's not gonna develop your mind. It's not gonna inspire anyone to do anything great. And it's not going to make you a better person.

However, understanding a subject like math/physics/engineering etc. can help make you a better person. You can develop skills that will allow you to excel at pretty much any subject. Working with things that are definite (x = right, y = wrong) allows you to develop skills in analyzing any situation, seeing fundamental structures or patterns. Someone with these skills AND some creativity can do wonderful things and can really contribute to the world.

On January 27 2010 06:36 BabyRhino wrote:
a little thing about creativity is, it requires knowledge. the more branches you have, the more connection you can make. the ability to make connections is a skill, but if your mind is a blank sheet of paper with no knowledge, you can't be creative.

what you guys focus on is this "hey lets encourage creativity, it will create more scientists, rather than grueling school work that seem to be meaningless". but you seem to ignore that the scientists/entrepeneurs that has the best/most creative ideas are also the ones that worked the hardest, and gave themselves the best opportunities by spending more time reading, memorizing, and learning what other people has done.

if you think you can be creative without reading and learning the dry but fundamental stuff in all domains from physics to medicine to business, (which is what schools prepare you for), then you are very wrong.

public education prepare children with the knowledge and skillsets they need to succeed in higher education. so don't cut yourself a break and blame the public education for failing you and wasting your "creativity" with their method of teaching, when it is your laziness that wasted your own potential.