# Teaching > General Teaching >  Education in America

## coberst

Education in America

It appears to me that there are two categories of educational techniques. One focuses on creating 
graduates with large databases and the other focuses on the individual creativity of its graduates.

The US system concentrates on large databases and ignores (I think not accidentally) individual creativity.

The graduates of US education are great producers and consumers and almost totally without individual creative capability. Our economic system thrives on a policy of habit, pattern and routine. The workplace wants action and not time consuming thought. Thought must be of the kind that can quickly choose between True and False or A, B or C. Thought should be curtailed to a minimum; quick action must be accentuated to a maximum. Any action delayed by excessive thought is to be discouraged. All thought beyond T or F and A, B or C is excessive.

The workplace, primarily the large corporation, needs expert specialists with finely detailed pattern recognition. The most valuable employee, at any single moment, is one with a readily available menu of routines who can--after recognizing the problem patternquickly choose the routine that will immediately reengage the wheels of production. 

Our college graduates are primed for pattern recognition and choosing routines. If the workplace detects a situation wherein the available routines are inadequate quick action is demanded to correct that situation. Our workplaces are designed to accommodate workers who follow detected patterns with honed routines. The workplace must maximize routine and minimize the need for any thought outside that which is carefully calibrated by routine. The most efficient workplace functions like a military force wherein all actions are made in response to codified routine. Even when the need arrives to replace an ongoing routine with another, this action too, is codified.

We think of the private entrepreneur as a very creative thinker who wins because of a quick and creative brain. I suspect there is some degree of truth in this assumption but it is a very small factor for success. Someone said success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. The major element of success results from correct business pattern recognition; followed by well-honed business routines that makes success a possibility. Luck then determines who succeeds or fails. Bruit force capitalization, I suspect, is also a big factor. Bill Gates and many others attempted to develop software in the early days of the hi-tech boom. One or another of these entrepreneurs would succeed magnificently. Gates happened to be the one. 

So, when all our citizens are educated to be successful in the world of produce and consume, what citizen is prepared to make good judgement in life when faced with problems with no pattern and no routines? 

I have more than 16 years of formal education. Within the American lexicon I would, I think, be considered well educated. *In my opinion, our standard college degree does not advance our education but very little. I think that it advances our training a great deal. I think this college degree prepares us for our life as a producer and consumer and does little positive to advance our ability to be what I consider to be a good and wise citizen.*

----------


## blazeofglory

This is really a very interesting post; for education today is commercialized or traded the way shared are traded on the stock exchange. People want to spend money thinking that there would be substantial returns investments and no one in point of fact cares for building character at all. What concerns us is fast bucks, and bucks at any cost. People thru education want to build mansions of their desires and expand empires of their greed. 

Education must be inventive, and thru education one must learn what are his values in life. And what makes humans good humans and how to live integrally thinking that we are guests on this planet and that we must save the planet for posterity. 

But I do not think schools impart such education to kids, and of course there is moral science but hardly people succumb to what it teaches, for what moral science teaches is unimpressive and people are not moved by it.

Of course the system of education not only in the US elsewhere in the world. Today education is commoditized and or packaged like any other materials. Success is measured in terms of how much wealth you have succeeded in amassing, not in developing your character.

----------


## motherhubbard

> The US system concentrates on large databases and ignores (I think not accidentally) individual creativity.


This has been true in the past, but it is changing. More and more emphasis is placed on higher level thinking and creative problem solving. We see more learning projects, self directed classes, integrated curriculum, and critical thought lessons. I imagine that as students who have been encouraged to think reach college things there will change. Actually, I think that things college education is already changing, but there is a thinking curve as opposed to a learning curve. 




> *In my opinion, our standard college degree does not advance our education but very little. I think that it advances our training a great deal. I think this college degree prepares us for our life as a producer and consumer and does little positive to advance our ability to be what I consider to be a good and wise citizen.*


I think that most people do not go to college in pursuit of knowledge. I think they go so that they can get a higher paying job. I think that we can't blame the institution for what people are in pursuing. I think most people are only interested in being producers/consumers.

----------


## NickAdams

I've posted a link to this school before, but I'll give it again. It can be looked at a a curiosity or a legitimate option: http://www.sudval.org/




> Education in America
> 
> It appears to me that there are two categories of educational techniques. One focuses on creating 
> graduates with large databases and the other focuses on the individual creativity of its graduates.
> 
> The US system concentrates on large databases and ignores (I think not accidentally) individual creativity.
> 
> The graduates of US education are great producers and consumers and almost totally without individual creative capability. Our economic system thrives on a policy of habit, pattern and routine. The workplace wants action and not time consuming thought. Thought must be of the kind that can quickly choose between True and False or A, B or C. Thought should be curtailed to a minimum; quick action must be accentuated to a maximum. Any action delayed by excessive thought is to be discouraged. All thought beyond T or F and A, B or C is excessive.
> 
> ...


Luckily I'm a four time drop out. It is often said the the U.S. public school system is designed in a way as to produce factory workers.




> I think that most people do not go to college in pursuit of knowledge. I think they go so that they can get a higher paying job. I think that we can't blame the institution for what people are in pursuing. I think most people are only interested in being producers/consumers.


 :Nod:  It's why I retired from college. Courses are focused in such a way that you read parts of texts and I was unsatisfied. I want to read the whole of something, not just the portions that promote a particular idea. I can couldn't care less about obtaining a degree. Give me knowledge unabridged.

----------


## MANICHAEAN

Unfortunately, unless you are very lucky or very gifted; there is the formal education in comparatively mundane subjects designed to earn you a good living, raise a family etc etc. And then there is an education in literature. If you are forced into the strait jacket of the first, it generates a passion for the second, which preferably is not formal or institutionalised, but is a self taught journey of learning which lasts untill you slide into the grave.
Becoming an accountant or a corporate manager merely provides the comfort zone outside of which you can read & stimulate the imagination. The end of ambition, also comes as a great relief.
Some express their creativity in painting, others in playing a musical instrument. Where does writing exist in this?

----------


## Chiz

At one time, American colleges were a place to share ideas, discuss multiple perspectives, and explore concepts. For the past twenty years, most colleges and universities are filled with professors who teach their agenda--socialism--and actually punish free thinkers in their classes. I know because unless I would immediately adhere to the professor's perspective on an issue, I received a lower grade. In order to work through the system, if you have different or alternative ideas, concepts, etc. --you have to be very tenacious.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> At one time, American colleges were a place to share ideas, discuss multiple perspectives, and explore concepts. For the past twenty years, most colleges and universities are filled with professors who teach their agenda--socialism--and actually punish free thinkers in their classes. I know because unless I would immediately adhere to the professor's perspective on an issue, I received a lower grade. In order to work through the system, if you have different or alternative ideas, concepts, etc. --you have to be very tenacious.


I'm sorry I'm not buying that for a minute. I find it extremely unlikely that professors mark down in order to punish free thinking. It is much more likely that your work is slightly off the mark instead, no offence like. Maybe you have been reading too much Ayd Rand or something?

----------


## Wilde woman

Coberst, just to clarify, are we talking about college level education? I feel like your concerns may be justified at the high school level and perhaps for the sciences, engineering, business, law, etc. 

But do you feel that the humanities do not encourage critical thinking? What about when our professors ask us to write analyses of texts? Or when we go to office hours to discuss ideas for our papers? What about graduate students in the humanities? They engage in discussions with their peers, with faculty, with faculty and peers from other universities (at conferences). Personally, I feel that in order to get your work published, you have to be at least somewhat original, and that requires both an established body of knowledge and personal initiation/creativity. 




> Education must be inventive, and thru education one must learn what are his values in life. And what makes humans good humans and how to live integrally thinking that we are guests on this planet and that we must save the planet for posterity.


I agree, but how do you go about teaching morals in school? If parents, teachers, and peers do not live by the morals they preach, how can they expect their children to learn such lessons, especially in this society where the three most desired things are money, sex, and celebrity. Also, even if there are teachers who try to reprimand students for bad behavior, they can immediately get slapped with lawsuits by angry parents, who think their entitled kids are god's gift to the world. Our society has transformed school into a place that fosters only academics and competition, and where little emphasis is placed on attributes like respect, compassion, and generosity.

----------


## _Shannon_

There is a reason we homeschool and a reason I went to St. John's College....lol! Living in a University town, I know it to be true that many professors of humanities desire discipleship over free thought--if the professors are even in the classroom at all and haven't given over their teaching time to grad students.

----------


## Gladys

So who's right?  :Confused: 




> Living in a University town, I know it to be true that many professors of humanities desire discipleship over free thought...





> I find it extremely unlikely that professors mark down in order to punish free thinking.


I suspect history shows us (for instance Lysenko in Stalinist Russia) that admiration, even idolatry, of the pedagogue carries less risk than _intellectual whistle-blowing_. Or are _humanity_ professors the exception?

----------


## Virgil

This is unsubstantiated rubbish. Purely anecdotal. If this were the case the US would have no creative artists and the rest of the world would have no business leaders. Mind I remind the OP of jazz, rock and roll, and plenty of literature from the US. Mind I remind the OP of lots and lots of non-American companies that do extremely well - BMW, Honda, and Yoyota come quickly to mind. This is garbage.

----------


## Rores28

Virgil can you be more specific as to the parts of the OPs post with which you disagree.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I'm sorry I'm not buying that for a minute. I find it extremely unlikely that professors mark down in order to punish free thinking. It is much more likely that your work is slightly off the mark instead, no offence like. Maybe you have been reading too much Ayd Rand or something?


Oh, I don't know. I think there are plenty of professors out there who would knock down your grade or certainly give a student a hard time in class for believing the "wrong" thing or having the wrong politics.

----------


## Virgil

> Virgil can you be more specific as to the parts of the OPs post with which you disagree.


I was pretty clear. The entire premise is rubbish, purely anecdotal. I have my criticism of the American education system and I've expressed it in many places here, but this nonsense that one leads to more creativity or more business accumen is crap. I wish the American system did provide better business accumen. It's the economic system that has provided the US with business leadership, not the education system.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Oh, I don't know. I think there are plenty of professors out there who would knock down your grade or certainly give a student a hard time in class for believing the "wrong" thing or having the wrong politics.


Although my education has mostly been in the sciences, in the social sciences I've encountered mostly politically conservative professors. The notion that the universities are populated only by socialist is absurd, and Neely is right to criticize that post. I think there are professors who will naturally be antagonistic against ideas they disagree with, but on a professional basis I doubt any deliberately set out to squash ideas. More often than not, the student crying out that they've been wronged by a vindictive prof have simply not produced quality work.

Edit: I agree with Virgil too, the OP is way off base.

----------


## Rores28

May I ask Virgil and Pip what your respective degrees and jobs are?




> This is unsubstantiated rubbish. Purely anecdotal. If this were the case the US would have no creative artists and the rest of the world would have no business leaders. Mind I remind the OP of jazz, rock and roll, and plenty of literature from the US. Mind I remind the OP of lots and lots of non-American companies that do extremely well - BMW, Honda, and Yoyota come quickly to mind. This is garbage.


Here Virgil I note that you take issue with something the OP has not explicitly stated. You've created a straw man by which the OP is comparing the US to other countries. I may have misread but I don't see that he seeks to make this comparison in his post. It looks like he is commenting on US education because that is simply what he has experience with.

Furthermore, an education system that is primarily focused on less-creative instructing methods is of course not completely bereft of those methods. Nor would we say that the education system is the only way one becomes educated about the world creatively, or otherwise. There was a time after all before formal education in which people developed creative pursuits. I wonder how much, for instance, the formal education system aided or sought to foster rock n roll (other than indirectly as a sort of anti-trend). 
I note this of course in response to your delineating the existence of creative accomplishments in the US.

----------


## Virgil

> May I ask Virgil and Pip what your respective degrees and jobs are?


I have a bachelor's in mechanical engineering and a masters in Eng lit.




> Here Virgil I note that you take issue with something the OP has not explicitly stated. You've created a straw man by which the OP is comparing the US to other countries. I may have misread but I don't see that he seeks to make this comparison in his post. It looks like he is commenting on US education because that is simply what he has experience with.


You're right, he didn't explicitedly say it, but I do think it was implied. It was phrased as a comparative.




> Furthermore, an education system that is primarily focused on less-creative instructing methods is of course not completely bereft of those methods. Nor would we say that the education system is the only way one becomes educated about the world creatively, or otherwise. There was a time after all before formal education in which people developed creative pursuits. I wonder how much, for instance, the formal education system aided or sought to foster rock n roll (other than indirectly as a sort of anti-trend). 
> I note this of course in response to your delineating the existence of creative accomplishments in the US.


Well, what the heck does it mean to be educated then? We are all products of the education system. If people are creative how the heck do you tell if the education system helped or hindered it? It's all speculation. That's my point. Actually this whole line of thinking is totally nonsense. Unless you can come up with a cause and effect that one education method produces less or more creativity, then the whole notion of this thread is rubbish.

----------


## OrphanPip

> May I ask Virgil and Pip what your respective degrees and jobs are?


My degree is in microbiology and immunology.

The fact of the matter is that the assertion that there are merely two forms of education is absurdly reductionist, it ignores the subtleties of what is a very complex issue. How say you, would you train scientist to be creative pioneers in their fields without first providing them with a substantial knowledge base. The first step towards forwarding knowledge in any field is understanding the fundamentals. 

I think it's ridiculous to say that graduates from American schools are bereft of "individual creative ability," whatever that means. I'm not an American, nor am I a product of the American education system, but it is ridiculous to propose that US institutions do not produce vast numbers of creative and talented individuals in all fields, ranging from the humanities to basic science.

----------


## MarkBastable

> There is a reason we homeschool



Yup, nothing like homeschooling to give kids access to a broad range of views, attitudes, social situations and peers from diverse backgrounds.

Me, I'm an atheist. And that's why I make sure my kids go to a school that will give them a comprehensive religious education. I don't have to believe it - but I do have to make it available to them, and preferably from someone who does believe it.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Although my education has mostly been in the sciences, in the social sciences I've encountered mostly politically conservative professors. The notion that the universities are populated only by socialist is absurd, and Neely is right to criticize that post. I think there are professors who will naturally be antagonistic against ideas they disagree with, but on a professional basis I doubt any deliberately set out to squash ideas. More often than not, the student crying out that they've been wronged by a vindictive prof have simply not produced quality work.
> 
> Edit: I agree with Virgil too, the OP is way off base.


In English and the Humanities most of my professors were left-wing. According to quite a few studies in general Social Science Professors also tend to be left-wing. 

There have been multiple studies by academics and more biased organizations that have consistently found universities lean left, especially in the Humanities. This is hardly an exhaustive list of the studies.

Now whether these professors consistently let their political leanings and biases invade their research, their lectures, and how they grade is up for debate, but whether most professors on campus are leftists or not really isn't.

Nevertheless, I don't think its beyond imagination to think an institutional culture where everyone basically starts with many of the same political assumptions, where they have tenure and are extremely difficult to fire so there aren't a lot of major repercussions if they do let some of their biases leak out, will have some professors who will take advantage of these facts and take it out on the students for having the wrong politics or disagreeing with them since there are very few repercussion to them if they do so. 

I think this is transforming into yet another false either/or dichotomy that people on the internet love. It has to be either most of these people complaining about left-wing professors are just writing crap papers or it has to be the left-wing professors are letting their biases and prejudices punish people who disagree with them, despite their brilliant intellectual abilities. As with most things its probably a combination. In some cases, many conservative students just write crap papers and think its political bias for their bad grade; but it's also not hard to imagine that in some cases, the paper was fine, and it was political bias that hacked off a few point because the professor knows he won't be punished for it. And paper grades are highly variable anyway.

As someone coming out of the sciences, though, you probably don't realize what it can be like in the Humanities (history, english, philosophy, Women's Studies, etc.). Believe me I've had professors stare at us in disbelief when we told them we weren't Communists or professors who spend half their teaching time declaring out loud that they didn't understand why all the McDonald's workers making minimum wage weren't protesting in the streets and starting the Revolution.

----------


## _Shannon_

> Yup, nothing like homeschooling to give kids access to a broad range of views, attitudes, social situations and peers from diverse backgrounds.
> 
> Me, I'm an atheist. And that's why I make sure my kids go to a school that will give them a comprehensive religious education. I don't have to believe it - but I do have to make it available to them, and preferably from someone who does believe it.


Yeah--because homeschooling means that we're holed up in our house and never leave, never interact with other human beings, never use the internet, nor read, nor watch films. Because my husband and I are identical clones with exactly the same thoughts and beliefs, all we do all day long is indoctrinate and brainwash our kids, refusing to allow them access to outside the village. Ideas are dangerous, and we certainly want to keep our kids from having any of_ those_.  :Rolleyes: 

There are many ways to learn outside of school. I'm assuming you still learn even though you're not in school.

----------


## stlukesguild

It appears to me that there are two categories of educational techniques. One focuses on creating
graduates with large databases and the other focuses on the individual creativity of its graduates.

The US system concentrates on large databases and ignores (I think not accidentally) individual creativity.

I must agree with Virgil's suggestion that the OP is way off on many of its observations. Like Virgil, I too am concerned with many of the problems existing in the US education system... especially considering that I watching these problems as an insider... a teacher. I will agree that certain groups... especially politicians... place far too much value and credence in the vast databases... in standardized testing. This is far more of a concern at the grade school level where such testing has become a means of evaluation the quality of schools and teachers while ignoring individual realities of these students, such as poverty, lack of discipline, lack of parental support, abuse of various sorts, and the academic skills the student began a given testing year with. There is a great concern, as there should be, that the quality of American public education is unacceptable considering the wealth of the nation and the importance of a well-educated populace if we are to remain competitive... yet there is little desire to really face up to difficult challenges (financial and otherwise), and make a concerted effort toward fixing existing problems. It is far easier to point the fingers at teachers and public education as a whole. Politicians from the local to the national level fear getting deeply involved because of the danger to their political career given the very real possibility that the latest placebo efforts prove a failure. This is one of the reasons for the increasing growth of charter schools or privatization. The politicians as a whole would love to see someone else take on the responsibility. Of course there are some real problems with charter schools... including who gets "stuck" teaching the most difficult students... but that is another discussion altogether.

Our economic system thrives on a policy of habit, pattern and routine. The workplace wants action and not time consuming thought. Thought must be of the kind that can quickly choose between True and False or A, B or C. Thought should be curtailed to a minimum; quick action must be accentuated to a maximum. Any action delayed by excessive thought is to be discouraged.

The workplace, primarily the large corporation, needs expert specialists with finely detailed pattern recognition. The most valuable employee, at any single moment, is one with a readily available menu of routines who can--after recognizing the problem patternquickly choose the routine that will immediately reengage the wheels of production.

Our college graduates are primed for pattern recognition and choosing routines. If the workplace detects a situation wherein the available routines are inadequate quick action is demanded to correct that situation. Our workplaces are designed to accommodate workers who follow detected patterns with honed routines. The workplace must maximize routine and minimize the need for any thought outside that which is carefully calibrated by routine. The most efficient workplace functions like a military force wherein all actions are made in response to codified routine. Even when the need arrives to replace an ongoing routine with another, this action too, is codified.

In spite of the shortcomings of public education at the grade school level... and in spite of growing costs... the American university system remains one of the best... if not the best... in the world. Statements such as the one above completely miss the mark and underestimate the complexity of the American economy and the workplace... and what is needed to succeed in such an environment. Indeed, the simplistic portrayal of the skills or thinking needed in the day to day workplace environment suggest a stereotype with very little real-life experience of the workplace. I certainly agree that education is largely put forth and sought as a necessity for succeeding in the workplace. As a result, the institutions of higher education repeatedly model their classes to meet these demands. The demands of the workplace are in no way a simple and mindless regurgitation of facts. Indeed, I would argue that not even public education at the grade school school level follows the outdated "Industrial Model" in which creativity and originality is discouraged and the goal was the production of model factory workers. Considering the continued achievements of Americans in medicine, science, technology, industry... as well as the arts and humanities, the suggestion that American schools are simply churning out uncreative automatons holds no water.

We think of the private entrepreneur as a very creative thinker who wins because of a quick and creative brain. I suspect there is some degree of truth in this assumption but it is a very small factor for success. Someone said success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. The major element of success results from correct business pattern recognition; followed by well-honed business routines that makes success a possibility.

Absolute nonsense. As someone who has started a business I can more than assure you that one needs far more than to follow the routine to approach anything like success. Yes, the old adage that success is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration still holds... but it is just as true in art or music or any creative field as it is in the day to day work place. The lazy artist or poet or composer who has achieved anything of real merit is no less rare than the lazy entrepreneur. Perhaps if one may argue anything it is not that education is so lacking in American culture... it is that we have far too many lazy people.  :Hand:  Of course one might add another quote: "Work smarter, not harder." That 10% of inspiration... creative thinking... is perhaps far more essential to the success or failure of any given endeavor than its size in the overall equation suggests. Within my own field of visual art I have repeatedly seen individuals of real potential amount to nothing because they lack the self-discipline... the work ethic... the "perspiration". An artist who puts in the constant 110% will almost eventually develop the ability to create something of merit... work of an unquestionably professional level. It is that added something else... "genius" if you will... that pushes the artist into a whole new stratosphere. Businesses that succeed... and that remain successful demand continual creative thinking to deal with the ever-changing realities of the market, the competition, and the audience/consumer.

Luck then determines who succeeds or fails.

Give me a break! Luck may play a role. An individual or an idea may be in the right time and the right place... but the success is still dependent upon the idea and the effort. One may also be lucky enough to have been born into great wealth... indeed, one might argue that anyone not born into poverty in African, India, or South America already has a foot up... but what one achieves with what one has begun with is rarely, if ever, "luck". There's another quote I might mention: "The real man (or woman) makes his (or her) own luck."

So, when all our citizens are educated to be successful in the world of produce and consume, what citizen is prepared to make good judgement in life when faced with problems with no pattern and no routines?

And do you presume that you, as opposed to all these other "automatons" churned out by our educational systems, are better at making "good" judgments when faced by today's challenges? In a side note, I will mention that the American individuals are indeed "educated" to be consumers... but this owes far more to the efforts of the producers... the corporations... through advertising, etc... than through education. This "education" of consumers is not something unique to Americans, but is rather universal. Unless you believe that the Chinese and the Japanese are not working as hard as they so that they may share a similar standard of living... so that they may purchase the same things we purchase... but rather for some higher moral purpose?

I have more than 16 years of formal education. Within the American lexicon I would, I think, be considered well educated. In my opinion, our standard college degree does not advance our education but very little. I think that it advances our training a great deal. I think this college degree prepares us for our life as a producer and consumer and does little positive to advance our ability to be _what I consider to be a good and wise citizen_.

Good. I have more than 19 years... and 14 years working in Education... and I can tell you for a fact... education is what you make of it.

So this entire diatribe essentially comes down to the fact that how others have utilized their education is not what you consider to have been a model of how education should or could be employed?

----------


## AuntShecky

I had saved this particular thread for a time when I could read and digest it. I really didn't want to respond, but as I have said over and over again, when it comes to the American educational system, "Don't get me started!"

A caveat -- it's been at least a decade since I've been in front of a classroom, but additionally, I've watched my own children go through both public schools and special education programs. Not only that, I spent several years pursuing my own--from a financial point of view-- "useless" degrees. (Cf. the thread titled "OMG! I Can't Believe I Majored in the Wrong Field.") So please take what I am about to say with the proverbial grain of salt, and feel absolutely free to disagree. (As a previous reply stated, there have been some positive changes in the system.)

1. I said this before but it's worth reiterating: there is a hierarchy in which the students are almost always the low men on the totem pole. The way I see it the educational priorities fall in this order: the interests of The State Education Department, The Local School Board,The Taxpayers, Administrators, Teachers' Unions. Next come parents, but only in a patronizing, lip service sort of way. Then and only then does anybody in authority consider what the children need and yes, want. In my opinion the order should be reversed. Educational priorities should come from the students up and not from the top down.

2. Charter schools and educational alternatives can be the answer but often fail. Charter schools can be effective IF the aforementioned needs of the students come first. When the charter school is merely a branch of some huge profit-making institution, the almighty dollar is the priority,
and the students become a resource to be exploited. 

3. Administrators run individual schools as their own fiefdoms. Go to any public high school in an urban area. Look at the metal detectors and the random locker checking, and the herding kids around like cattle. Some have decried the fact that "high school is a preview of prison," and how can you deny that when adolescents are treated as if they were criminals? Some of the rules are arbitrary, and almost always the administrators follow the letter rather than the spirit of the rules.

3. In a previous posting, I quoted the conventional wisdom that even though Albert Einstein was the smartest man of the 20th century, he'd never be hired as a teacher because he lacked "certification." We must continue to examine the ways we train teachers. The old "stay a chapter ahead of the kids" isn't going to cut it anymore. Would-be secondary teachers should major in the subject they wish to teach; English or math or chemistry can't be mastered as a college "minor." 

The almighty "teacher certification" should place more emphasis on the "what" and not the "how." 

Try to remember your best teacher -- he (or most likely "she) wasn't in it for the money; she was there because she wanted to share her knowledge. Back in the Jurassic Age when I was a student, I learned much more from the teacher who was passionate about the subject matter rather than one who knew all the tricks of the pedagogy trade. A bored kid will never learn anything. 

And by the way, drop the "self-esteem" building. Don't praise a kid just for showing up in class and breathing (with or without his mouth open.) Most kids see that for the sham it is -- that achievement precedes self-esteem, not the other way around. But you can encourage a child to achieve by raising your own expectations about him or her. Don't talk down or patronize him. Don't worry about the material going over their heads. You're the teacher -- you're supposed to be "too hip for the room!" 

4. I agree with the original poster that education is directed toward producing future wage-earners and consumers. I've seen the emphasis my own pitiful teaching career; the goal wasn't a diploma but a "job," even a menial or semi-skilled one. Forget about learning for its own sake, or the art of critical thinking. Thomas Jefferson said something about democracy in that it wouldn't work unless the citizenry was well-informed. People who don't know how to think are quite malleable--they can be led around like sheep.


No, schools don't have to teach "morals,"or preach for/or against religion, but education was meant to help children become well-rounded, intellectually curious human beings. As the original poster opined, there is a world of difference between real education and "training." 

5. The cost of a college education (along with medical services) has risen faster than the over-all rate of inflation. Because it's so damn expensive and because students and parents go into heavy-- sometimes lifetime-- debt, it is only logical that the graduate and his parents will want to recoup their investment. That is why humanities and English departments keep losing enrollment while other disciplines with better career prospects rise. 

Because teaching traditionally pays less well than other professions may also explain, in a way, why we don't have smarter teachers. The cream of the crop, so to speak, will be more attracted to medicine (at least the high-paying specialties) and law. Before you jump all over me, I'm not saying that teachers are less professional or "dumber" than physicians. What I'm saying is that teachers should be as intellectually capable and as rigorously trained in the subject matter as well as medical interns.

Finally, I see red whenever I hear somebody say that he or she "makes her own luck." Do you think some parents made their own luck when their child is born with a permanent disability? Did the workers who spent 20 years working for a company "make their own luck" when the corporation outsourced their jobs to India? Did the middle class "make its own luck" when Wall Street gambled away pension funds and ruined the mortgage industry? Please don't tell me that I had the power to "make my own luck" because I certainly wouldn't have made the "luck" I'm stuck with!

----------


## stlukesguild

1. I said this before but it's worth reiterating: there is a hierarchy in which the students are almost always the low men on the totem pole. The way I see it the educational priorities fall in this order: the interests of The State Education Department, The Local School Board,The Taxpayers, Administrators, Teachers' Unions. Next come parents, but only in a patronizing, lip service sort of way. Then and only then does anybody in authority consider what the children need and yes, want. In my opinion the order should be reversed. Educational priorities *should* come from the students up and not from the top down.

SHOULD... but how do we mandate that? Politicians see education as a means to promote certain values. The School Boards have little if any real practical experience with teaching and learning and depend mostly upon recommendation of "experts" in curriculum planning and school administrators. School Administrators make a truly nice salary but are ever aware that their job is dependent upon the whims of the higher ranking administration and the school board, and are often evaluated in such a way that puts them at odds with the teachers. The Teachers Unions are a favorite target of blame in any discussion on education because no one wants to come off blaming the teachers... but the Union is essentially the teachers as a collective group. Yes, there are bad or incompetent teachers... as there are incompetents in any field, but the reality is that it is the unions that have largely promoted the idea that teachers meet certain minimal standards for which they should be afforded a living salary. It might be interesting to point out that it is the schools in states where the unions are weak or non-existent that have the worst scores. Some of the best results have occurred in districts where peer review is employed... allowing teachers to evaluate and mentor their peers. No teacher wants to be working with an incompetent. 

Parents? That's a real problem, isn't it? You would place parent's priorities above that of teachers, administrators, etc... yet a great many parents have completely abandoned their responsibilities for their child's education and development. Indeed, a great many lack the education or experience needed, more than we would like to admit are not merely incompetent, but abusive (psychologically, physically, sexually, etc...). 

That brings us to what the students... children... need and want. So are we to base education of a First Grader upon what a six-year-old wants? A nice Rousseauean concept reiterated by Dewey... but the idea was and continues to be an absolute failure... first and foremost upon a practical level. 

Standards for the law or medicine or engineering are established by experts in those disciplines... not by politicians, parents, local elected officials, or children. They are reinforced by the rule of law... in other words, supported by the government... but not involving endless political meddling which should be avoided at all costs. One need only look at the results when medical or scientific decisions are skewed by politics (Abortion, Creationism, Stem Cell Research, Global Warming Research, etc...)

2. Charter schools and educational alternatives can be the answer but often fail. Charter schools can be effective IF the aforementioned needs of the students come first. When the charter school is merely a branch of some huge profit-making institution, the almighty dollar is the priority, and the students become a resource to be exploited.

Charter schools can be an answer... for some. But when charter schools are free to "cherry pick" the best and brightest and easiest to teach, leaving the rest to the public schools which then must do their best with a depleted budget it has become a means of increasing the divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots".

3. Administrators run individual schools as their own fiefdoms. Go to any public high school in an urban area. Look at the metal detectors and the random locker checking, and the herding kids around like cattle. Some have decried the fact that "high school is a preview of prison," and how can you deny that when adolescents are treated as if they were criminals? Some of the rules are arbitrary, and almost always the administrators follow the letter rather than the spirit of the rules.

Have you actually ever been in one of these urban schools? Why do you think such security measures exist? Do you imagine that the gangs and violence and weapons in these schools that make the news are mere fiction? Who do you imagine is going to be willing to work in such an environment without security? How well do you imagine a student will learn when his or her physical safety is a continual concern? 

3. In a previous posting, I quoted the conventional wisdom that even though Albert Einstein was the smartest man of the 20th century, he'd never be hired as a teacher because he lacked "certification." We must continue to examine the ways we train teachers. The old "stay a chapter ahead of the kids" isn't going to cut it anymore. Would-be secondary teachers should major in the subject they wish to teach; English or math or chemistry can't be mastered as a college "minor." The almighty "teacher certification" should place more emphasis on the "what" and not the "how."


And who will pay for this? If we assume that a teacher of chemistry must have a degree in chemistry, what will motivate him or her to go into teaching in the first place knowing that he or she could make far more in the private sector and face far less stress and hassles? And do you assume that if the individual is a master of his or her subject, they will also be good at teaching? Most of the worst teachers I've ever had were college professors who lacked the least "training" in pedagogy or how to teach and how to relate to students. How much I know is of no use whatsoever if I lack the ability to convey this to the student successfully.

Try to remember your best teacher -- he (or most likely "she) wasn't in it for the money... 

Oh really? He or she was just some inherently altruistic soul who cared more about teaching than supporting his or her own family? And does this apply to doctors and lawyers and engineers and scientists as well? Or is teaching some calling in which the individual recognizes he or she will sacrifice everything for the sake of another's child? When and where was this spelled out in college? I somehow suspect the field would soon become as popular as a specialization in Medieval Philosophy.

...she was there because she wanted to share her knowledge.

And she'd be there even if it weren't for the paycheck? Well let's be honest, here. No paycheck, and I'm out the door. I'm a professional. I love certain aspects of what I do, and hate others... but I am always a professional. In return for my knowledge, experience, and skills I expect to be compensated fairly.

Back in the Jurassic Age when I was a student, I learned much more from the teacher who was passionate about the subject matter rather than one who knew all the tricks of the pedagogy trade. A bored kid will never learn anything.

Seriously, I have rarely met a teacher who did not love and know more about his or her area of expertise than about pedagogy. The obsession with pedagogical strategies owes far more to administrators who lack the knowledge to truly evaluate teachers in their area of specialization... and so they focus upon classroom discipline, questioning techniques, etc...

And by the way, drop the "self-esteem" building. Don't praise a kid just for showing up in class and breathing (with or without his mouth open.) Most kids see that for the sham it is -- that achievement precedes self-esteem, not the other way around. But you can encourage a child to achieve by raising your own expectations about him or her. Don't talk down or patronize him. Don't worry about the material going over their heads. You're the teacher -- you're supposed to be "too hip for the room!"

Here I fully agree. The concern with the child's fragile ego, and abuse of undeserved praise and compliments is one of the reasons we have such an excess of children... and now adults... who imagine they are entitled to everything without having put forth the least effort. 

I agree with the original poster that education is directed toward producing future wage-earners and consumers. I've seen the emphasis my own pitiful teaching career; the goal wasn't a diploma but a "job," even a menial or semi-skilled one. Forget about learning for its own sake, or the art of critical thinking. Thomas Jefferson said something about democracy in that it wouldn't work unless the citizenry was well-informed. People who don't know how to think are quite malleable--they can be led around like sheep.

Of course education is seen by the government and the business establishments as a means to a financial end. It is largely the concerns of our government and business community about our inability to continue to compete on a global market that now leads the push for educational reform... not the philosophical belief that education serves some higher purpose, including providing a well-informed citizenry. What the individual makes of education, however, is up to him or her. 

Because teaching traditionally pays less well than other professions may also explain, in a way, why we don't have smarter teachers. The cream of the crop, so to speak, will be more attracted to medicine (at least the high-paying specialties) and law. Before you jump all over me, I'm not saying that teachers are less professional or "dumber" than physicians. What I'm saying is that teachers should be as intellectually capable and as rigorously trained in the subject matter as well as medical interns.

And again... who pays for this? What you are suggesting is that a teacher in an elementary school be as intellectually capable (which would assume having gone through some extremely difficult classes) and rigorously trained as a college professor... and in some ways I agree. Teachers within the public schools... at least those with whom I have had contact... recognize that it is not easier or less demanding to teach a Kindergartner than a 12th grader... or a college student/adult, for that matter... it is merely different. Yet there is this prejudice... this assumption that teaching Kindergarten, for example, is far less demanding and easier than teaching 10th grade or college. Having done all of these, I can assure you it is not true. One must understand what the students need to learn at that age and have a grasp of his or her development and how he or she will best learn. But now you suggest they be as knowledgeable in their discipline as a professor (and there are more than a few who do have as much or more expertise in a given specialization as a college professor) or a medical intern... and so who is to pay for the increased schooling this will involve and for the greater demand as supply drops as fewer students find they are able to complete the requirements? 

Finally, I see red whenever I hear somebody say that he or she "makes her own luck." Do you think some parents made their own luck when their child is born with a permanent disability? Did the workers who spent 20 years working for a company "make their own luck" when the corporation outsourced their jobs to India? Did the middle class "make its own luck" when Wall Street gambled away pension funds and ruined the mortgage industry? Please don't tell me that I had the power to "make my own luck" because I certainly wouldn't have made the "luck" I'm stuck with!

Obviously, my words were in response to the OP who stated blankly that "Luck determines who succeeds or fails." As I stated, "Luck may play a role. An individual or an idea may be in the right time and the right place... " and "One may also be lucky enough to have been born into great wealth... indeed, one might argue that anyone not born into poverty in African, India, or South America already has a foot up..." Certainly one may add to this that luck plays a role in whether we are born and remain healthy and luck plays a role with regard to the intelligence and skills or "talents" one is born with... or without. But the notion that the whole of success is dependent upon luck and that anyone who succeeds (financially or otherwise) was simply lucky is mere sour grapes and insulting to a great many who have worked very hard and often sacrificed much for what they have achieved.

----------


## Gladys

> And who will pay for this? If we assume that a teacher of chemistry must have a degree in chemistry, what will motivate him or her to go into teaching knowing that he or she could make far more in the private sector?


Pay? In Finland, I'm told, the minimum qualification for teachers is a Masters degree, and teaching _is_ well paid. Why impossible in the US?




> Of course education is seen by the government and the business establishments as a means to a financial end ... What the individual makes of education, however, is up to him or her.


How sad that it's up to immature students to _make something of education_ amidst a maelstrom of misinformation and propaganda. Sad that so few teachers and parents get a sensible perspective across.

----------


## OrphanPip

Canadian teachers are required to hold bachelor's degrees plus a post-graduate diploma in education, I think there are exceptions for elementary schools and private schools. Also, in Quebec the mandatory college (equivalent to a grade 12 and 13 for Americans sorta) requires teachers to have master's degrees, and I had a couple teachers in college that had PhDs.

They aren't paid all that well, I've heard the American teachers in some regions get more pay.

Edit: I'm a bit wishy-washy, but I've very nearly applied to do that diploma and teach high school biology. Not sure teaching is the career for me though. Anyway, still young, lots of time to decide.

----------


## JBI

Strangely the US has one of the more creative approaches to education. Compare that to East Asian models of education, or even the models in some countries, where children in high school already have their education mapped out for them, and you will see how the US system is different. Of course, it also means a lot of mediocrity is passed through the system, and that test scores in certain fields are lower, but that does not mean it isn't creative.

Now, that being said, I would argue that US culture in general does not see creativity or a sort of difference in terms other than dollar values. It's been remarked upon since the 19th century that the US is obsessed with money over all else (Baudelaire found that in Poe, leading to his love affair with the American's works). 

Still, to me it isn't education, but merely the fact that education is not funded properly in many instances, and most of the top universities are private institutions. 

In Europe, and Asia, the best universities are always the State-run ones, that generally are much harder to get into. Obviously then, in those countries high degrees seem to be worth more (I think Canada and the US have a cultural knack of not valuing people with Ph. D.s for instance). 

Likewise, on the lower levels, from what I understand lots of states in the US have unequal, or disfunctional funding, which probably adds to things.

Still, I think of all countries, the US seems to be in the forefront of encouraging at least some creativity in students.

----------


## AuntShecky

Thank you, St. Luke's Guild, for your extremely cogent reply to the posting in which I admitted at the outset, was
open to argument. The following isn't an argument, per se, but just a clarification of some points I dropped down in my earlier reply.

1. Your remarks about the school boards seemed to agree somewhat with what I had said. Some school board members know about educational issues, but others are, in some communities, political hacks. Many school boards are elected -- an important note to remember in that other than electing their representatives taxpayers don't really
have much say as to how federal, state, and real estate tax revenues are specifically spent. Just about the only issue that taxpayers have a directsay is in approving or disapproving proposed school budgets. Yet, even when the taxpayers vote a certain district's school budget down, it comes up for a vote again and again, often without substantial changes, until it's finally passed. Also in districts where citizens elect the school board members, the names on the ballot are often in alphabetical order. In cases where the voters are asked to "vote for any three" the first three members often win. Woe to candidates named Young or Ziblowski. (Once more "luck" rears its ugly head.)

You are right in your assumption that many parents seem indifferent to what is going on in the schools. But be careful of broad generalizations -- many alternative programs and charter schools arose because of the dedicated efforts of low-income parents who saw their children's futures short-changed because of the shoddy school system, painfully unequal to that of wealthier, suburban schools. This is nothing new -- such a contrast was one of the issues presented in the film, _The Blackboard Jungle_ --from *1955*! In more than a half-century, conditions haven't changed much. 

A number of my teaching jobs were in alternative city schools for disadvantaged, high-risk youths and young adults. In nearly all the cases, the students had dropped out or been expelled or chronic truants. Some of them had originally attended schools that were run like medium-security prisons in which the kids felt they were "marking time." Some of them had been "written off," and tacitly told that they'd never make it. In a teaching environment in which they weren't treated like garbage, or ignored, they felt better about trying to succeed, that learning wasn't completely hopeless for them. Some eventually were able to work for and receive a diploma, but I'll admit, many didn't. But I swear on my parents' graves that most kids will make the attempt to rise to high expectations of them. In the reverse, they will sink to the level of our preconceived notions of them. 

About giving even elementary school children a "say" in what or how they are taught -- if a young teacher isn't "learning" from her students as well as their learning from her, she is only doing half her job. All of us --parents, teachers, government officials-- have to LISTEN to the kids and be alert to what they are telling us in so many ways.

And finally, about luck again: You are right in saying that "intelligence, skills, and talent" all play a role in whether someone succeeds, yet if one doesn't use those qualities, he or she will fail. The problem is someone may "work extremely hard and sacrifice much" and STILL not succeed.
Sometimes economic and social forces -- chance-- will subvert the most determined efforts. A case in point, when two job candidates of equal ability and educational background apply for the same position, it is "luck" that decides who gets the job. Getting to the interview stage in the first place sometimes is helped along by the "old boy
network." After a lifetime of heartbreak and frustration, I am convinced that success or failure depends at least in part to a fortititiously timed, "lucky break." In this so-called "Land of Opportunity," it is painfully true that it's not "what" but "who" you know.

----------


## stlukesguild

In Finland, I'm told, the minimum qualification for teachers is a Masters degree, and teaching is well paid. Why impossible in the US?

Because far too many Americans do not understand the importance of education... especially as we have moved beyond the Agrarian and Industrial ages. Far too many are simply selfish. Any notion of taxes being levied for the common good... for education, for health care, to provide for the homeless... is seen as the Great Satan: Socialism... and teachers... and the vast majority of those who attained a higher education are all suspected of being elitist Socialists. :Crazy:  :Ack2:

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> They aren't paid all that well, I've heard the American teachers in some regions get more pay.


In Alberta teachers are paid pretty well, but then again so are most people who work for the gov't in this province. My boyfriend's aunt took a two year nursing degree, and you should _see_ what she rakes in (of course she still complains that it's not enough, but still).

----------


## IceM

I always thought American education declined with the advent of Sparknotes, Cliffnotes, and the sort.

----------


## stlukesguild

I think the notion of the "decline" of American Education is something of a falsehood. The percentage of Americans who now graduate from high-school is far greater than it was in past generations. When we consider the vast numbers of American involved directly in agriculture prior to WWII and the fact that many of them never completed the 12 years of school (there was no need) as well as African-Americans, Hispanic migrant workers, and a great many of the children of poor immigrants in the cities, the American Education system has come a long way toward becoming a system of free universal education.

The problem now is that the system has failed to keep up with the demands of the time. The quality of education offered to many is inadequate... especially for a nation as wealthy as the U.S. We are no longer the sole economic power in the world as we were in the years following the Second World War, and our economy is no longer driven by Agriculture and Industry in which a limited education is quite acceptable. To maintain our position or quality of living it is no longer possible that we allow huge numbers of our children to be afforded sub-standard education. This is something the federal government is only now coming to realize. For too long they have abandoned their responsibility, leaving it to the individual states and individual school districts to establish standards. National standards... an expectation that every student will have mastered a given skill or knowledge by a given point... is something that many of the European and Asian nations that repeatedly surpass us in testing have employed for years... and something many educators have repeatedly advocated for. Unfortunately, many conservatives and progressives have fought against this concept for the same idea: the fear that national standards would take away their ability to employ education as a means of indoctrination... to teach religion or creationism or an Afro-centric curriculum, etc... And fearful they should be. The role of education should be to provide students with the knowledge base needed to function and succeed within the larger culture. Alternative ideas are something that needs to be taught at home... or developed by the individual student who has mastered the skills needed to think critically and the passion to continue learning.

----------

