How important is Education?

[Morkonan]

...Looking at history, most of the major discover that server as the basic of modern society was founded from the time where the education system around the world was much more rigid and pure, I think the deterioration we see today is the result of a lot of our drive are now influenced by political correctness and social engineering. We focus too much on thing such as prestige, feel good statements, talking about dreams while at the same time move too far away from practicality and reality.

(Could have responded to more, but I want to limit my replies as best as I can, so as not to flood the thread with stuffs people don't want to read.. )

We have pushed a message to our young generation that they have an intrinsic value to society and that they fully deserve this. This is very true - All human beings should be valued for who they are, not what they are.

But, then we've filled many of their heads with so much rhetoric that some have forgotten that, while society appreciates you, it's not going to give you whatever you want for free and not everyone in society is bound to declare your practical worth to them as being immeasurably valuable. Further, we've firmly planted it in their heads that they should "you do you" and be whatever they wish and follow their own course because what we value above all is "freedom of choice." Then, when left to their own devices to be "free" and set on the road and told to pick a direction, when they make a bad choice because nobody has acted to help them form a credible and desirable one, we tell them "thanks for playing, you have gained nothing, please deposit $250 this month to make your payment on your student loan for a non-viable degree."

We have neglected to inform them that Social Darwinism will be the judge of the appropriateness of their choices.

It's a double edge sword really. Even if you manage to make everything free, there will still be one thing that can never be free - TIME...

During the Enlightenment period, in the West, education, philosophical or "scientific", was undertaken mostly by wealthy individuals who had the time and resources to do so. In fact, it's only relatively recently that universities have been accessible to people who aren't financially affluent, thanks to a "sponsor" system, either public (State) or private (grants/private loans.)

We can not give anyone free time and we can not release everyone from every possible burden that could effect their ability to participate in higher education. One day, we may be able to do these things. However, even so, I doubt that any time in the near future will there be a period in which we no longer need skilled vocational labor or even semi-skilled workers to fill vital roles.

.."Creating the environment so everyone can live up to their true potential" is a buzz statement that you can hear at just about any educational conference...

It may be a buzzphrase, but it is fully justifiable given modern political and social thought. We have a "duty" to provide such an environment for every person. That does not mean, however, that everyone will always have equal access. It should mean, however, that access is not blocked to anyone, no matter their hardships. This sort of philosophy behind public education and higher education is an advanced notion, given public education was never intended to provide the same value of instruction as higher-order colleges and universities.

That's the conundrum we're currently dealing with - Not all knowledge, education or training is equally valuable, despite the fact that we've pushed the notion that all human beings are equally valuable so deep into our children's head that they believe it must apply to everything that they do... no matter how inane.

...3) The private schools such as Eton are basically just a way of getting the ruling elite's children to socialize and form 'societies' with each other, so that when they graduate university, they all know each other and hire each other into positions of power. As soon as become that politician, you hire your friends for everything you need. Contracts and business goes to the companies that are owned or run by your school friends. They are the Eloi, but they don't get eaten by us Morlocks....

Sorry for truncating, but I wanted to pick out these two very important points:

First - With the firm establishment of the Information Age, we are seeing a very unique, in human history, screening and hiring dynamic - The impact of near instantaneous information exchange and availability.

With this, the very real impact that social and "word of mouth" information exchange about available jobs and those who are qualified for them is disappearing in the "skilled marketplace." (It still exists in a very real degree in the larger semi-skilled and laborer markets.)

What that means is pretty dramatic - It doesn't mean that because you got a degree and are skilled in a particular form of labor that you will be able to apply for a job without much competition. In fact, what it means is that the competitive field for any skilled job, especially in the tech sectors, has broadened dramatically. It has gotten so large that one must either truly excel in one's chosen discipline or, otherwise, excel "on paper" with degrees and certifications, or one must have very strong advantages in another area, like social contacts, affluent connections, secret societies and the Illuminati if one is to gain the most desirable jobs...

What is called "social media" plays a critical part in job-seeking behavior, today. Not only with things like Linkedin (which I get constant friggin messages from and updates, which I'm friggin sick of) but with blogs and crappy crap that many serious, excellent, students and professionals aren't used to using very well to make hiring them seem more appealing. A friend of mine with decades of engineering management in the tech sector and who has a dept budget in the millions of dollars and who makes decisions every day that effects a huge swath of people... He told me that in order to make himself more appealing to employers, despite his experience, he'd have to start a technical blog, invest a lot of time in social media specializing in his discipline and grab as much resume' padding achievements (big ones) in order to be able to compete with the worldwide labor pool... Literally - Worldwide.

So, an advanced degree today entitles one to say they have the absolute, ground-level, most basic capability to fulfill the minimum job-requirements in an entry-level, very low port-of-entry, position in one's chosen field. However, gaining the best jobs, especially if they're scarce, requires one to compete heavily, even globally, for them.

(Redacted economic environment comments.)

So... Is education important.
Well, to read and write and arithmatize (the three "R"s (stupid expression)) Yes, it is very important.
Further than that. Nope.
Employers require qualifications, so from that view, they are important.

I don't have an answer....

But, what of the value of education as a whole? What of the value of a broad or "holistic" education?

Your comment reveal you've read some interesting books or have seen some interesting movies that are certainly focused on social commentary. In fact, you've taken those ideas and have applied them directly to the situation at hand, even though you may have not yet reached a conclusion you are satisfied with. Still, your use of information and your exposure to other disciplines and the arts has allowed you to applied what you have experienced and learned, there, to the a problem at hand not directly within their fields.

The issue of a "complete" education comes to mind. The arts, literature (especially!), the "soft-sciences", even physical education and sports, all can play a role in forming a well-rounded, valuable, potential employee. This holistic education can even make one more valuable than a competitor who has not had such exposure and experiences.

How does experience and knowledge of these these ancillary disciplines outside of one's chosen field of study effect one's ability to gain employment or to excel? I think they matter a great deal.

[Morkonan]

Thing is, I was even considered stupid by other kids, not just the teachers, since I couldn't write, ad I was awful at sports. ..

I was poked, prodded and examined. I went through a battery of tests before and during kindergarten... I remember dark rooms, examiners politely telling me to accomplish certain tasks, shapes, colored blocks, drawing, a "written test", discussions, blah blah. When I spoke, which was rare, the kindergarten teachers listened to me. Later, all during grade-school and into high-school, my "permanent record" (Insert Southpark joke) followed me and teachers/profs would sometimes seem to pay special attention to me. I got away with whatever I wanted.. But, luckily, I have a conscience that demanded fairly decent behavior/morals/ethics, so I didn't abuse whatever apparent privilege I had. Well, not too much, at least.

But... everyone had such high expectations (And demands). And, look at me now! I'm posting on a game forum. I've accomplished nothing of note, as far as I am concerned, and have little value when compared to most.

The Great shall be humbled and the humbled made mighty...

[mrbadger]

That thing of leading a horse to water but you can't make it drink?

I've seen that so many times, my last comment demonstrates the exact thing.

Equal access fixes nothing. You need to find out how to help people understand the value of education to them personally.

If the education you're offering isn't of value, how can they find the education that is?

I hate it when I see students who I can plainly see have been badly advised and aren't suited to university life at all.

Not that they're stupid, usually the opposite is true. But my subject isn't for everyone, university isn't for everyone, but these days success means 'must go to university' apparently.

But sometimes people are just lazy, and will stay lazy till they mature and have a chance to realise laziness is the wrong way to go.

[Morkonan]

That thing of leading a horse to water but you can't make it drink?

For me, I drank deeply and broadly. (I was forced out, because I could no longer accumulate credits... Well, I could have stayed in as some sort of life-long scholar, but I'm pretty sure someone would have probably come along and shot me or something. (If you guys had American access to firearms, I'm sure one of you would have been tempted to fly over here and shut me up with a dose of lead. )

BUT, I never lived up to my own standards, certainly not the expectations and demands of others.

..Equal access fixes nothing. You need to find out how to help people understand the value of education to them personally.

Absolutely true! "Education" is not always a goal that contains a "direction" within it. There is an intrinsic value, as well.

If the education you're offering isn't of value, how can they find the education that is?

I hate it when I see students who I can plainly see have been badly advised and aren't suited to university life at all.

Not that they're stupid, usually the opposite is true. But my subject isn't for everyone, university isn't for everyone, but these days success means 'must go to university' apparently.

I disagree a little bit. I think your subject is for everyone. By that, I think that everyone would benefit from learning about it. In many ways, I think that if people could go deeper in that learning, they'd realize ever-increasing benefits.

But, that doesn't mean that value is gonna spend and it doesn't mean that the electric company will take "interesting and illuminating discourse" as payment for one's bill.

Are we, due to rapidly changing social and economic factors, further emphasizing and defining the age-old line between the "haves" and the "have nots" when it comes down to ones suitable use of education?

A job is posted in "Silicon Valley." (U.S. techno-industrial-puter-info-focus-eco-development whatsits) Who responds? Well... everyone who is minimally qualified, around the world, responds. Sort of. At least, that's the hiring pool for that sought after job posting.

So, the employer's knowledge about potential candidates has been broadened so much that simply "being a candidate" is no longer the advantage it once was. If one is competing on that basis, alone, one must truly excel at "being a candidate."

What's the question, now, that a potential employee must answer? Who they know? How well they do in an interview? What does their contact list look like? Who did they go to school with? Did they pass the first interview? What third-party placement company did they hire to help them find employment and how much of a retainer or hiring-fee are they contracted for? Did they ever post their drunken fraternity party pics on their Facebook page? Do they have a smartphone? What does their Linkedin profile look like? Are the on Google+? Did they co-publish as an undergrad? A grad? Can they afford to travel to be interviewed in their first face-to-face after five different levels of pre-screening applications and Skype interviews?

Did their University advisor tell them that any of this was going to be involved in the real-world practices of lucrative employers and did they adequately prepare them for the New Real World?

[Ketraar]

I would like to go into detail answering some of the valid points made by Morkonan and explain why I think the way I do. Unfortunately English I had to learn on my own, by watching non dubbed movies, then googling words on the internet and abuse CBJs willingness to correct some of my spelling over the years.

As I try to translate already rather erratic thoughts into somewhat understandable sentences it takes me around an hour or so to write half a standard Morkonan post, often getting lost in my own translation.

Still...

The question I have is: Why is the current system not workable as it is designed and a new system must take its place for it to be successful?

The current system no longer works as we face different problems. The fast paced social and technological "advancements", make it hard to train people towards a specific goal. The example used by Jericho regarding memorizing stuff, is a good one. Many older people here have just learned to memorize stuff, like rivers, capitals, etc. shows how hard is for most of them to grasp anything abstract. Not sure how it is in other places, but here the type of education is pretty much the same still. Children are told stuff, they memorize it and repeat by making crosses in multiple choice tests. Then when faced with the slightest "curve ball" they struggle.

On top of things, the educational hierarchy, of maths and language being the main focus and a complete disregard for pretty much everything else makes things even worse. Which brings us to the issue of having curriculum, often set by people with excel sheets in front and low or no contact with the "real" world. Putting people together based on stupid criteria like, birth date and location. That you have nothing in common with anyone else interests no one. Mostly school is worse than a job, I can quit and change my job, but a child cant do that for school, so they have to make do with being lucky.

And that is what bugs me the most, it cant be that you need to be lucky, a system has to be implemented that allows for the maximum outcome, freedom of development, easy access and safety. Any system that accounts for these and TRIES to put them as priority will be better than the current one.

The point is that humans naturally have an extremely high capacity for learning. Children, especially, soak up oodles of stuff like a sponge. We sit back and marvel at it, but that's the way children's brains and behaviors are naturally built. Then again, they also poop in their pants and pull pigtails, so it's not all that great of a miracle in toto.

I fail to understand your point here. Children are children, they dont need to a miracle, THAT is my main point. They need to be allowed to be children, not having 3 year old toddlers being interviewed so they can become a CEO, or Dancer, or Footballer, etc. No one knows what that child will like, it wont have the chance to develop "naturally". Give it the best access you can provide and allow it to define what talents it has on its own, the gain for society is enormous.

An example I use here, is of one aunt. She is a very intelligent person, you can tell by speaking to her she loves learning and likes to delve deep into philosophy. But she was made to go to work at the age of 14, she was made to become a housewife, have children and all that. Now imagine what can happen if this person is allowed access to study and develop fully. Maybe she would have the exact same life, with the difference that she would have had a choice. Maybe she would have gone to study medicine and invented the cure for a disease, we will never know.

One thing is for sure if we "educate" children to achieve what WE think is best for them, we are gambling with their lives and eventually with society as a whole.

Not going to address the whole "you get born with intelligence" remark, even if it bugs the crap out of me and will just claim that no one really agrees on what intelligence really is and how to define it.

MFG

Ketraar

[Morkonan]

I would like to go into detail answering some of the valid points made by Morkonan and explain why I think the way I do. Unfortunately English I had to learn on my own, by watching non dubbed movies, then googling words on the internet and abuse CBJs willingness to correct some of my spelling over the years.

As I try to translate already rather erratic thoughts into somewhat understandable sentences it takes me around an hour or so to write half a standard Morkonan post, often getting lost in my own translation.

Your already ahead of me, there. I speak and write a form of English that isn't really agreed upon by English speaking peoples... That's about it. (I want to learn Latin, though. But "wan't" isn't "doing.") If you'd rather, I can try to use Google Translate to interpret your finer points, if that's easier for you.

Still...

...The current system no longer works as we face different problems. The fast paced social and technological "advancements", make it hard to train people towards a specific goal. The example used by Jericho regarding memorizing stuff, is a good one. Many older people here have just learned to memorize stuff, like rivers, capitals, etc. shows how hard is for most of them to grasp anything abstract. Not sure how it is in other places, but here the type of education is pretty much the same still. Children are told stuff, they memorize it and repeat by making crosses in multiple choice tests. Then when faced with the slightest "curve ball" they struggle.

New studies out this week and last, IIRC:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 081547.htm Yay, shock treatments for memory!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131236.htm Supersize your memory!

The point is that "progress" in understanding how people learn, incorporate ideas, come up with solutions to problems and even how they memorize things... these are all continually studied. BUT, what we learn is not often incorporated into practical solutions very rapidly.

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health/ ... -nap-pods/

Remember falling asleep in school? College? Morning classes were terrible trials? There's a reason for that. In fact, sleep is critical for your brain to reboot its capacity for learning. Little sleep, little capacity... it's that simple. And, teenagers and young adults with still developing brains? They need that sleep, but too few get it. This school is doing something about that.

Applying knowledge is difficult. Those who specialize in such things can certainly see the advantages of new innovations. But, in order to apply knowledge, one has to be intimately familiar with the area of knowledge its' being applied to.

Students aren't often taught "how to learn" and they are only very rarely taught "how to apply one's newfound knowledge." So, it doesn't come as any surprise to me that many students aren't very enthusiastic about what they're memorizing and being tested on, since they don't see a reason to value it.

..Mostly school is worse than a job, I can quit and change my job, but a child cant do that for school, so they have to make do with being lucky.

And, you know it shouldn't be that way. But, what we should strive for is a quality education, no matter what school a child is in. And, if they're taught how to "student" and especially "why to student", maybe they'll gain an insight into how valuable their education could be?

And that is what bugs me the most, it cant be that you need to be lucky, a system has to be implemented that allows for the maximum outcome, freedom of development, easy access and safety. Any system that accounts for these and TRIES to put them as priority will be better than the current one.

And, what about the ever-controverial - Results-based education? Should we be concerned about the actual results of whatever education plan we come up with? Shouldn't we also plan to measure the performance of a new plan so that we can evaluate whether or not it is successful? How do we know if a student is benefiting from the education we are giving them if there is no way to measure their competency? After graduation, it's too late and a failure of the education system would be catastrophic for the individual if all they came away with was a misguided assumption that they knew all they needed to know about diffusing bombs, so they were ready for the bomb-diffusing business.

I fail to understand your point here. Children are children, they dont need to a miracle, THAT is my main point. They need to be allowed to be children, not having 3 year old toddlers being interviewed so they can become a CEO, or Dancer, or Footballer, etc. No one knows what that child will like, it wont have the chance to develop "naturally". Give it the best access you can provide and allow it to define what talents it has on its own, the gain for society is enormous.

We can certainly know what a child will be like if we are given a number of measurable variables. I know with a certainty that if a child is not introduced to the spoken language by age eight or so that they will have severe intellectual impairment and no amount of instruction for them a number of years afterward will significantly improve this and they will likely be incapable of caring for themselves. We can also make fairly accurate predictions given a number of other environmental and physiological factors.

But, the point is this: How is education not allowing a child to be a child? More importantly, how is acting to impair their development rather than to nurture it? How can a general education approach, like many used today in the West, be anything other than beneficial for a normal developing child?

What I'm trying to understand here is not whether or not we should encourage a child's natural ability to consume information, which I accept wholeheartedly, but why, exactly, it is being said that modern education practices are somehow harming or holding back certain students, especially the very young who are in a critical phase of intellectual development. The concept of "Freedom" and personal liberty is a wonderful thing, but we do not apply those things to children because they are not armed well-enough to use that freedom and liberty safely or constructively.

Show me an unsupervised toddler or grade-schooler and I'll show you an ever-increasingly likelihood that something, soon, will get broken. That is surely not what we're aiming for, is it?

..Maybe she would have gone to study medicine and invented the cure for a disease, we will never know.

That is entirely possible. I've met many "uneducated" people that are very intelligent. Perhaps they would have made different choices had they the opportunity? But, does that mean that the choices they made, with our seeming insistence that they were denied something, were wrong or turned out badly for them?

Missed opportunities are tragedies, but only for those who understand the potential those opportunities presented. Yes, everyone should be armed with the knowledge that opens as many opportunities for them as possible. But, that doesn't mean that they will make the choice you or I think they should make...

I know people that started families instead of furthering their education and becoming rocket-scientists or discovering the cure for apathy. Yet, despite what some would consider a "missed opportunity" on their part and, as a result, an unforgivable tragedy and a failure of the education system to motivate these people, they turned out to be happy, productive, successful members of society. And, on a personal note, I consider them to be "richer" than I am and to have more of what I would consider to be "success."

One thing is for sure if we "educate" children to achieve what WE think is best for them, we are gambling with their lives and eventually with society as a whole.

We have an obligation to do what we think is best, don't we? Yes, even if that means to "do nothing." But, if we are trying to improve education and improving it in the matter "we think is best", aren't "we" still, if one continues this train of thought, imposing ourselves upon the development of young minds?

We can not escape the responsibility and we can not escape the cost of our actions or lack of same - We have to make decisions that effect those who are not yet capable of making their own. That has been true for as long as "the family unit", the basis for human civilization, has been around.

Not going to address the whole "you get born with intelligence" remark, even if it bugs the crap out of me and will just claim that no one really agrees on what intelligence really is and how to define it.

People can generally agree what it is, at least in human terms. They can even agree on how it can be measured and compared. There is also good agreement for general predictions that revolve around an individual's intellectual capacity as measured by Standardized Method (Insert tool here).

However, there is no guarantee that a person with a superior intellect will accomplish anything nor that one with a lower measured performance will not accomplish more than a genius. All we can say with any surety is that below a certain standard measurement, a person can not adequately care for themselves or navigate social environments and that certain people with exceedingly high intellects often have deficiencies in other areas, sometimes crippling ones.

Geniuses can invent wonderful things, but sometimes they fall in love with a pigeon...

[Morkonan]

PS - I'll bow out for a couple of days because I know how verbose I can get, especially when it's a subject I'm enthusiastic about. I'll respond to replies, of course, but it's time for me to give others some screen-space for a bit.

[Jericho]

PS - I'll bow out for a couple of days because I know how verbose I can get, especially when it's a subject I'm enthusiastic about. I'll respond to replies, of course, but it's time for me to give others some screen-space for a bit.

I was just rambling when I wrote my stuff. Had limited time. Tricky subject to handle in a forum, needs a more direct back-and-forth (and a few drinks).

At least it isn't happening over twitter 140 characters to prove your case... Why do people even bother?

Twitter-guy1: Alt-left lifelong liberal
Twitter-guy2: Alt-right life long conservative christian
Twitter-guy1: Tweets: Can't you see, that your religion is wrong?
Twitter-guy-2: Replies: Wow, you're right!!!!!

Never happens. Never will happen. Why do they all get so outraged on twitter and expect to convert people one way or another in 140 characters?

[Usenko]

I have been in a few discussions where it was more like:

* Lifelong atheist: This is why I can't believe in a God.
* Lifelong Christian: That makes sense. I tackle it like this.
* Lifelong atheist: Heh, that's actually a good way to manage it. I like it. Not enough for me though.
* Lifelong Christian: Thanks! And yeah, I can respect that. This issue used to bother me. It doesn't so much anymore, but I can get where you are going with this. Anyway G2G.
* Lifelong atheist: Cool, see you another time.

They're rare, but they DO happen. And they make you feel pretty good when they do.

[Jericho]

I have been in a few discussions where it was more like:

* Lifelong atheist: This is why I can't believe in a God.
* Lifelong Christian: That makes sense. I tackle it like this.
* Lifelong atheist: Heh, that's actually a good way to manage it. I like it. Not enough for me though.
* Lifelong Christian: Thanks! And yeah, I can respect that. This issue used to bother me. It doesn't so much anymore, but I can get where you are going with this. Anyway G2G.
* Lifelong atheist: Cool, see you another time.

They're rare, but they DO happen. And they make you feel pretty good when they do.

Never seen anything like that ever! These days I've pretty much retired from the internet as both sides in any argument/debate are exactly the same. They all call each other snowflakes and make fun of their safespaces and their fragile-something-or-others.

Conservatives are the new liberals and liberals are the new conservatives. While the alt-left is every bit as bad as the alt-right.

Well, that's one way to derail a thread...

[Mightysword]

Quote#1

We have pushed a message to our young generation that they have an intrinsic value to society and that they fully deserve this. This is very true - All human beings should be valued for who they are, not what they are.

Quote#2

Then, when left to their own devices to be "free" and set on the road and told to pick a direction, when they make a bad choice because nobody has acted to help them form a credible and desirable one, we tell them "thanks for playing, you have gained nothing, please deposit $250 this month to make your payment on your student loan for a non-viable degree."

Quote #3

However, even so, I doubt that any time in the near future will there be a period in which we no longer need skilled vocational labor or even semi-skilled workers to fill vital roles.

Quote #4
It may be a buzzphrase, but it is fully justifiable given modern political and social thought. We have a "duty" to provide such an environment for every person.

Quote #5

Equal access fixes nothing. You need to find out how to help people understand the value of education to them personally.

If the education you're offering isn't of value, how can they find the education that is?

I hate it when I see students who I can plainly see have been badly advised and aren't suited to university life at all.

All of these quotes relate to the point I'm trying to make, so I'll refer to them with their # without any particular order.

@Quote #4. First, that's exactly what I mean by modern education is driven by political correctness and social engineering, and while you may argue it's morally justifiable it also sometime detach from reality. An ideal is simply an ideal no matter how good you think it is on paper, it is only as good as it can yield result. Remember communism is the best system there is on paper, but the reason it's that good on paper because it ignore reality, and thus it can't become reality.

Second: I have no problem with agreeing with that buzzphase "providing an environment where everyone can live up to their potential", and yes I think that's what we should do. However what I'm asking is what gonna happen to those who fail that "realizing potential process"? What is plan B? Right now, Plan B seem to be what you describe in Quote #2. Again, that buzz phase is spoken at every educational conference, but if you're at one next time after that line is uttered, raise your hand and ask the same question that I asked and see how ackward and silent the room will become. Because no one has answer to it, it's an elephant that people don't even want to acknowledge.


@Quote #5: it will fixes something, many thing or nothing at all depending on how one define "equal access". So help me some here, can someone define to me clearly what "equal access"?

- Does this mean everyone who want to can sign up for it?
- Does this mean everyone who want to and "able to" can sign up for it?

If it's the latter, great, if it's the former then it will fix nothing. Going back to #4, one can certainly argue that we're morally provide access to everyone and it's right. One can certainly argue that we're morally obliged to support anyone in pursuing their dream, and that "sounds" correct. BUT, are we morally obliged of stopping people going down the path that will ruin their life? Are we morally obliged of stopping people from making bad decision? It seems that idea here is that we don't want to put people down by our own sword because "feelbadman", but it seems we have no problem seeing and letting people die on their own sword while telling ourselves that it's ok, that was their choice and our hand is clean. Who gonna do the dirty job? Let's me ask you this: is it ethical to guide student down to a non-viable pass base on passion and freedom alone? In fact with the epedimic US students are facing, some circle is starting to ask that very same question.

An example for this is the advising system in some Asian country, take mine for example:

- Every students required to have a vocational certificate prior to graduating from highschools regardless of what you want to do. This is the system preparing you for your plan B. If necessary, you have a basic foundation to start an apprenticeship or join a tradeschool.
- The career counseling at the last year of high-school take into account of your aptitude, your family situation, your financial and all that. For example, if a student consistently have low mark on math and science tell the councilor it's his dream to become an engineer, he will be actively discouraged of doing so. The councilor will have no problem suggesting to join a vocational school over college if it's deemed more suitable to the student. Of course this is simply advising, we're not stopping anyone from doing what they want. It may sound bad, but IMO it's a lot better than sugarcoating it with thing like "oh that's your dream, that's great! You just have to do your best! No money, you can take out this loan and pay it back once you have that 6 digits salary job!" Advising is about giving advise, even if it's not a popular one, advisors are not supposed to be simple cheerleaders.


This tie back to quote #1 #3 and #5:

You go to any highschools graduation ceremony and you will often find the principals thumping their chest speaking proudly about the number of graduates got admitted into college and university. What they never mention though, is usually less than HALF of those number will finish a degree, and among those even a smaller amount received a meaningful degree.

As someone who hold several degree, I would like to think myself as above average intellectual wise. But the more I study, the more I'm aware the saying that not everyone will have the same aptitude in every subject is very much true. There are things that I'm just inept at studying, subjects that I have studied under both oriental and western method, as well as trying my own method and never achieve reasonable result. Some are not even subject I hate, in fact I love a few of them with a passion, doesn't make me better at them though. That's why mrbadger's point about not everyone are built for the same subject, and it's not because they're smart or stupid. But it's an unpopular idea because the political correct driven idea should be "everyone are equal", right?

My job have me dealing with people in vocational schools. And we get a lot of "type" of students: second chance highschool, drop out, ex-criminal, people who fail college, immigrants, people who have a non-viable degree ...etc... In short, the type who "chased the dream" and didn't get it. That makes me sad is that there is one group that is distinctly absence from vocational schools: fresh high-school graduate. Not a surprise really, like I said above the override directive is funnel as much of those students toward higher education regardless of their chance of success. Like I said, we're driving people base on prestige and glamour, not reality. Vocational school for one reason or another, seem to be the secondary choice.

And it's all the more frustrated when you realize a lot of these people are perfectly capable and smart individual. There were simply goat toward an environment unsuited to them. Had these people were guided toward this direction from the beginning they would not have:

- Wasted a few years of their life.
- Have a $20000+ student loan.
- take a bruise on their self-esteem.

But, they had to go to college/university so some other people and the society feel good about ourselves. Talk to them and it's not rare to see someone who used to chase a more loftier dream of being an architect or engineer, the common sentiment that they now realize it's just a dream, and they wish either someone or themselves have realize that sooner. About #3 like I mentioned in another thread, the US have a severe shortage of skill-labours. With just a couple of years of hard study, a wielder will more than likely find a job that pay higher that most job offered to a 4 years degree holder, so why Vocational School keep being treat and an undesirable destination.

And I want to close this post with another example, granted this one come from a game but I think it does have a point.

- The game has this very competent engineer that you can recruit to work on your ship. After a few chapters, when you're at a port he come to you and tell you that someone just make him a very offer to work for them. And he wants to ask you that as the captain, what do you think he should do, and the game gives you two options:

+ Tell him that it's complete up to him whether he decides to stay or leave the ship, he's free to choose.
+ Tell him that he's an important part of the crew and you would love him to stay.

If you pick the first option, he leave your ship. I forgot exactly what was said but in general he told you that's you're just being pretentious and lack the decisiveness of a captain. I know most people picked the first option, I know I did. Why? It feels correct, and it make me feel good. If you choose the 2nd option, than he will stay with you, again forget most of the text but I remember one sentence: he said "it's felt good that you are needed".


Remember, it's easy to do something that you agree with, but most of the time the harder decision is to make one that you don't agree with, but objectively good for the recipient (not necessary yourself). And that freedom of choice is precious, then think about this:

- When you give people all the freedom they ask for then yes, they can have the freedom of making the correct choice and the wrong choice as well.
- Look at yourself as an example. How many time in your life you didn't know what was the best option for you without hindsight. How many time that even when fully aware what is the best option for you to take, by nothing but your own freewill, you decided to take less optimal choice? How many time you made a decision knowing full well there are more chance it's going bad than success? I'll give you my answer: guilty on all counts too many damn times.

[Jericho]

Gender Studies for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mrbadger]

Spend just a day 'of piste' in India, then tell me that everyone has rights, cos everyone must just mean everyone within the 'nice' countries.

It sure isn't really everyone. It's a lovely dream, but I can't see it happening any time in the next few decades, probably not in this century.

I love India, but the poverty and sheer misery and horror of the lives so many people are forced to live isn't nice when you come face to face with it.

Then there's the smell, oh the smell....

I'm not surprised that so many people from that part of the world fail to understand what plagiarism is. They buy themselves out that misery the second they can.

Trying to get them to understand that buying essays and dissertations isn't allowed in the west is an uphill struggle, because some of them just can't grasp what we mean.

[Morkonan]

...Trying to get them to understand that buying essays and dissertations isn't allowed in the west is an uphill struggle, because some of them just can't grasp what we mean.

(Just a quick comment, 'cause I'm tryin' to be good and let other ppl speak. )

I'm reading "The Rise and Fall of Nations" by Ruchir Sharma. Excellent f'in book, a "must read" about the 2008-era economic collapse, how it effected nations, what we have learned from it regarding the economic mechanics, etc. (I highly recommend it, since it's a very insightful look at such things in recent history.)

Anway, he's from India and, wow, does he illuminate India's public sector, problems and black economy! Things like a 48% "teacher absentee" rate in public education, since teachers will get those jobs, but then go teach at a private school, instead, because they will get paid more there... Yet, they're still getting salaried from their public school teaching positions and nobody friggin' cares - It's "normalized."

The "Tea Room", where bribery is the order of business and where government officials sit at tables and simply collect money to expedite government services. (From other perspectives, not in the book, some people consider the "Bribery Economy" in India a good thing, since it allows people to bypass bad or corrupt laws... WTF?)

There's a host of other issues, of course, but the overall gist is that what you've encountered IS what happens, there. It's not unusual, this isn't something they're doing just to get a good grade or anything - This is their environment and that's what they do.

...because some of them just can't grasp what we mean.

You are exactly right in everything you posted. We can not solve "the World's" problems by looking at them through our own clouded glasses. We can't expect people to rush off for a college education when they don't have any clean drinking water. We can't expect them to "change so they're more like us" if they have never had any possible concept of what life in our societies is like.

Economic, technological advancement and even what we might consider to be "social advancement" is being made, across the board, throughout the World. It is happening, positively, at various rates. However, the same is true for economic/social/technological... "disparity." While advancement is happening, the rate of increase in disparity is also advancing. In other words, the gaps are also increasing between the Haves and Havenots or the "fed" and the "fednots." Success is there, on average, but those on the very bottom rungs are experiencing it at an ever-decreasing rate.

People are being left behind.

Some of this we can help, 'tis true. But, I think that's a sort of different conversation than the one you originally started. Still, it's worthy of consideration in a broad sense and, in our own societies, we have to also make considerations for those who may be left behind any implementations we might consider.

Note: "The West" is still the general "Education Capital" of the World. It is where many people come to receive a quality education that can not be found in their country of origin. In some places, that is changing as these student-immigrants return home. But, it still holds true, for now.

[mrbadger]

I do have to say that while I was there I was teaching, but teaching the upper echelons of the society (for my university, for myself I would much rather have been out in those villages).

In the richer classes you do find well educated, well motivated people who either have no, or much reduced reason to take part in the corrupt economy, so don't, and therefore get a proper work ethic and decent education.

Those were great to teach. I just hated teaching them knowing that there were kids who'd never get the chance a few miles away that I was far more interested in reaching out to, in spite of all the problems.

Still, that was then, can't do that now anyway, that was pre disability, now I can't manage that.

[Stars_InTheirEyes]

I do think education needs a focus shift.
For example, I think its nice that kids learn about our national history and what not, but I don't think its at all practical. I would rather have been taught about something that would be more useful, such as the basics of employment rights.

[mrbadger]

It is possible to teach both things simultaneously.

Plus employments rights, just as math, have little use without context, and context requires history.

The best thing to teach, or instill, is a love of learning, then the rest of it takes care of itself.

Humans are smart, we can teach ourselves.

[Jericho]

This is UK based, don't know how it is in other countries.
13 years ago I was speaking to a few driving instructors who had been in the business for a long long time (a long story, that I won't go into).

They said that every year it got harder, and the current crop of people they were teaching were the worst yet. They needed AT LEAST double the amount of training as they did in previous years.

(They accepted that there was more to learn than there used to be, but even so they were saying that they just had no attention span, and seemed to get upset if they weren't congratulated for not crashing every 5 minutes).

And that was 13 years ago, I can't imagine things have improved.

[mrbadger]

I'm in the UK too, and it varies year on year, but I sometimes get students who feel they need to be rewarded just for figuring out how to operate a computer keyboard.

These are people to whom the arcane mysteries of the grep command are beyond the ken of mortals. Even plumbing the mysterious depths of 'ls' can take weeks.

Sadly I am talking from very real recent and painful experience.

I don't think it's a UK thing, I think it's a coddled youth thing, they spend so much time being told they are wonderful precious clever little darlings they don't ever get to stretch their brain boxes.

[pjknibbs]

Well, to be fair, grep and ls are things they're not likely to have come across before unless they've used Linux or Unix systems elsewhere, and how likely is that? Besides, if you really want to mess with their heads you should be getting them to rename files with the assistance of the "sed" command.