Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: Shaggy on January 01, 2009, 01:58:34 AM
-
Although I am not currently enrolled in public school, when I was, I was extremely disappointed in the quality of writing that was taught by the teachers there. Not only was there almost NO focus on creative writing (!), but we had to learn total **** like expository writing (possibly the most USELESS technique ever taught to mankind, monkeys, and javelinas (I would say canines, too, but their habit of using urine to mark territory is just plain weird))!!!! Come on, ladies and gentlemen!!! Teach us some REAL writing!!! I wish people like Brandon Sanderson and RJ could show them a thing or two–then maybe so many trips to the bathroom during English class wouldn't be necessary!!! I once took an afternoon Creative Writing class in fourth grade (my mom forced me to go, but I came to like of my own free will (no injections were necessary that time ;D(kidding))) and the first thing the teacher (who is an extremely talented published author) told us was to forget everything our previous writing teachers had taught us. I was ecstatic. No rules?? No regulations?? No having to begin my stories with onomatopoeia?? And (can you believe it?) no 80-year-old lady telling me that swords were inappropriate for fourth grade kids (not that I have anything against 80-year-old ladies :))!!! I think more authors should do a clinic or two each year for kids who are passed expository writing and introductory paragraphs, and simply want to write!
Has anyone else had similar experiences with public school writing teachers (not that all private school teachers are great–far from it)? If so, please share….
-
As far as I'm aware, most public school teachers teach "English", not necessarily "Writing" (though that' s arguably an important component). That said, Brandon does teach college-level English. Go to BYU, and you can take his course.
-
yes, but a necessary part of english is writing, don't you agree? and in my opinion, a more broader range of types of writing should be tought…expository will only get you so far(this is, of course, just where i went)
-
I think the idea is that those who are interested in creative writing will write on their own. Not that I think that there isn't a place for creative writing in public education: I just don't think public education will stop a writer from writing.
-
I think it has to do a lot with the personal preferences of the teacher. My seventh grade and ninth grade English teachers focused a lot of creative writing. The best academic writing teacher I ever had, though, was a history teacher in tenth grade. She taught us how to write good, understandable essays, a skill I was able to use all through college and back when I was working. You may find such writing useless, but there are many areas of work where it is necessary and useful.
-
When I was studying education, a lot of the aspiring high school English teacher's I met said learning to write the most important thing they taught. That said. Most felt that it was the job of elementary teachers to teach writing and most I met had a strong preference for teaching literature over writing. Many had the attitude that if kids just read a lot they will learn to write on their own. It also doesn't help that teaching literature tends to be more entertaining for both the teacher and students than teaching writing.
I just find that the desired outcomes of English teaching tend to get muddled quickly.
-
It is true that kids who read more tend to write better.
-
Yes there is a correlation between reading a lot and writing better. However, this doesn't mean necessarily that reading more will make every person a better writer.
There are more direct ways of teaching writing. In my opinion, many English teachers could be more active in teaching writing skills.
I really didn't learn to write until college and most of what I learned about writing came from non-English classes. In fact, I often did more writing in my non-English related classes than the English classes I took.
-
Sigyn, I am NOT demeaning the necessity and/or value of knowing how to write essays, analytical pieces, compositions and such. I am merely expressing my feelings of how creative writing was not really teached (where I went to school for a time). And I must correct you, for I do NOT find those types of writing useless–however, creative writing is what I get the most pleasure from when writing, and I would have loved to have had more oppurtunities to show my work in school when I was younger. That is all.
I agree; it absolutely does depend on the teacher. It seems you got some good ones….
If you would rather keep this information private, that is perfectly fine, but if not…what school did you go to where you had those teachers? I'm curious….
-
I know a lot of the teachers have changed or retired since I went to junior high and high school, but I went to Millcreek Junior High and Bountiful HIgh School, both in Bountiful, Utah. Both had their problems--I could complain for days about certain aspects about them--but they had good parts too.
-
Yes, I agree with 42. Reading a lot can enable a person to recognize many things in writing that a non-reader wouldn't. For instance, when writing a piece that is particularly emotional, involves much feeling/passion, or is set in a different world/time, certain words just ruin the atmosphere and bring the reader back into the real world. (Not saying that reading makes great writers, just that it CAN help.)
-
The problem is that 98% of students will not grow up to write novels. They will, however, need to know how to write letters, how to create a resume, and quite possibly how to communicate through writing to other people within their business. So persuasive and expository writing takes priority when you have very little time to teach everything anyway. Most high schools do offer creative writing classes that are separate from your standard English classes, which is great. I'm not sure if mine did.
That said, I agree with 42 that too much emphasis is placed on literature in public school English classrooms. I too majored in English teaching (but didn't student teach because I realized I sucked at the actual teaching part). I found that most of my classmates had chosen the major because they wanted to share their love of reading with their students. Well, okay, great, but what kids really need is to know how to think, write, and communicate in the real world.
-
Nearly everybody enjoys creative writing in some aspect or another. The fact of the matter is, when compared to non-fiction writing styles, it is useless in the academic world for a grand majority of people. Public school exists, theoretically, to prepare individuals to be intelligent, capable individuals who are capable of performing necessary skills in the post high-school academic world or in the job market. Teaching students creative writing doesn't really do this. This is why creative writing is often offered as an optional course, or given as a minor part of the general curriculum. Unfortunately, there are other areas which overshadow it as far as academic importance.
There are a lot of artistic functions which are overshadowed by their "academic" counterparts for academic reasons. Orchestral band classes, sometimes coupled with jazz and marching band classes are offered, but rock band or modern pop band classes are not. Creative writing classes are often overlooked or mushed as a minor part of curriculum for non-fiction writing courses. Painting, sculpting, and drawing courses (if offered) can generally only be taken at the expense of other artistic courses, and in a preset order to provide the most marketable "graphic design" skills first. It comes down to the amount of time students spend at school, the amount of time teachers spend at school, and the amount of funding the school has for extra-academic programs. Students who are very interested in these arts will pursue them outside of school, whereas it is difficult to see students pursuing essay writing, calculus, etc. outside of school.
It would be nice, but we need to make sure students are taking the courses which better prepare them first and foremost, and the courses which they feel they are interested in, but aren't likely to use in the future, after that.
-
In your lifetime, you have no doubt either said or heard someone else say this question: "Why do we have to learn all this stuff? Why would I ever need to know how sedimentary rock is formed, or why you can't divide by zero?" I, too, have wondered this. But when I was in seventh grade, my math teacher was asked the same question, and responded with something alone the lines of this: "Truly, you don't. But the point of school is training your brain to think in certain ways. The specifics of Algebra I, for example {that was what we were learning at the time}, may not be useful in real life, but you will be able to apply the basics to real problems you will face." And that really is the point of school: to train your brain to think in certain ways in order to prepare you for the rigors of life. So wouldn't learning about creative writing be, in a sense, another way to train your brain?
-
Indeed, it is pretentious to think that studying Shakespeare will somehow enable an individual to communicate in ways that learning how to write creatively will not, and the same goes for many other silly (but perhaps interesting) things we are taught in school, such as how to multiply matrices. It is also a false dichotomy to compare creative writing with non-fiction writing: There is also such a thing as creative non-fiction (which is quite popular in literary circles, to be honest).
It has been my experience that the school districts which foster environments where students have more options and more freedom tend to promote excellence than those which emphasize only core classes.
-
I did creative writing twice in my public school career. I had to write a story in 4th grade (I think or maybe 3rd) and another in 10th grade. The 10th grade experience was the reason why I started writing. It was my first fantasy short story. I would have like to have had more opportunities, but I'm glad for the few I did get :D
Also, for the record, Algebra, dividing by zero, and sedimentary rock are not useless things to learn. I use all of those things in my field (I'm a GIS Analyst and Cartographer). The teachers don't know what fields each student is going to eventually choose, so they teach a little bit of everything.
-
Point taken. But there are some things that are useful only on a test of that subject. Example: the Reflexive Property. Do you know what that is? The Reflexive Property is that a=a. Pretty obvious.
-
And guess what? Creative writing is pretty useful in Brandon's field. Just about any subject they teach in school could be useful in the right field. Doesn't validate teaching it to the general public.
-
Yes, it is. Which is pretty much the point I was trying to make.
-
Hmmm.... there's an echo in here :D
I agree, I would have liked to have been required to write at least one short story per year. Unfortunately not everyone would agree. In 10th grade we were required to write a 2 page short story. Most of the class groaned and complained. I wrote a 26 page short story and loved it. (Though, I DID feel sorry for the guy that had to read and critique my story....) :D
-
I was doing creative writing in school since second grade (Lowell Elementary, Salt Lake City, UT). I think there's more of this out there than you think, it just wasn't at your school.
-
Sorry about that; I don't know what happened.
Haha, yeah I do, too. I agree.
Real creative writing? Or, like, the dinky little prompts that are 'You find a magical shell on the beach' or some crap like that?
-
Fell has a point: Not all school districts (or schools) are created equal. I know that Washoe County has a horrible, horrible school district, for example. We were fortunate that they ever offered Creative Writing in high school at all (though they didn't offer it every year, and it didn't count for English credit).
-
True. But reputations aren't everything. When I attended public school, it was a school system with a very high reputation (it was actually part of the reason my parents moved to the town). But my family and I have found certain parts very lacking.
-
I went to two very different high schools in my time as a student. First I went to my town high school where each semester you were allowed two electives. These electives ranged from Creative Writing to Drawing and Painting to Photography. I found that the options allowed us at that particular school where actually pretty good. Not only were you given the choice and ability to change classes each semester but after you passed one class in any given field there were others that became available to further your interest. I think our Creative Writing class went up to Creative Writing level four or five. Now I went more for the drawing and painting and photography but that was just me.
The second high school I went to was also public but it was vocational. Now that is another story all together. Having all of the schools focus on practical job training we didn't have any kind of electives at all. No art classes of band or chorus. The goal was strictly to get the students ready for the job market right after school. Although I enjoyed the photography and drawing and painting classes a lot I found that the automotive course i took was a lot more fun and helpful to me. Currently I am a mechanic in the national guard and I apply the skills I learned every time I report.
-
It really depends on the school, I guess.
What's the name of the vocational school?
-
Blue Hills Regional Vocational School in Canton Ma.
-
Fell, I think your school was a special case because I know it is the Gifted and Talented Feeder elementary to the ELP (or whatever they are calling it now) that sends kids in 7th grade to West high. Which is where I went and they did have an excellent creative writing class and teacher. As a matter of fact I know at least one published and award winning author to come out of those classes, Shannon Hale, and her husband Dean Hale.
Not that I think the high school creative writing is what made the difference in their becoming "famous" writers, but that good creative writing classes are exceptional and rare.
-
I'm divided. In high school i learned nothing in any of my English classes. The last thing I learned in public school English was the standard five-paragraph essay in eighth grade. While many will whine about this, it's also the single most useful thing I've ever learned about writing. It is a VERY hand, VERY clear, and VERY professional method of argumentative writing.
That said, I had a creative writing teacher in 12th grade (the course was also available to freshmen on up) who was the single most supportive and helpful mentor for writing aspirations I've ever met. She taught me a great deal about clarity, character, creativity (and other 'c' words) as well as finding inspiration. She will not be forgotten. My little brother and sister also took her class and will testify to her quality.
In addition, I also had a World Literature elective class taught by a little Jewish woman we referred to lovingly as "the hyperactive chipmunk." She opened my mind to reading analytically without being tedious or slavish... to ENJOY reading analytically and get useful information from it. While this didn't shape much of my writing style or ability, it does drive a lot of what I write about.
-
It's all about the schools, I guess. This is my first year at a new school, and as I get older I hope to find (and take!) more English electives.
readerMom, just making one small point–not all of the special programs (Gifted and Talented, Talented and Gifted, whatever other names they've come up with) are oh so great. And even if they are, they might not have such a focus on writing. (Although, you're talking about a school, so it might be different.)
-
I guess my point was the creative writing in second grade could have been because Lowell Elementary is an unusual school. But my children are learning writing in a much different way that I did. Their teachers are encouraging them to write before they learn spelling, grammar or any of the details and mechanics of the language. I think this makes them more willing to write and less worried about getting something wrong.
It is also extremely humorous to read my six yr old's "letters" home. She loves to write and sends letters to Grandparents and writes in her journal, all without knowing how to spell 85% of the words. I think she will love writing for the rest of her life. My other two school-age children have also benefited from this approach.
-
That sounds really great….I can see how that would be effective and beneficial.
-
The danger is that they will never see the importance of the spelling and grammar rules - after all, they can write without them, so why bother learning ther "right" way?
-
Because if they don't, eventually they will start getting C's and D's. Then they'll learn.
-
The danger is that they will never see the importance of the spelling and grammar rules - after all, they can write without them, so why bother learning the "right" way?
I do have that problem, but I think it is more a function of my eldest's Asperger's. He wants a logical reason for everything and telling him "That's just the rule, deal with it." doesn't fly. My other children have picked up this attitude. It makes for interesting discussions and occasional arguments with authority figures.
If they really want to write, they will figure out the rules so they can communicate more clearly. If they don't figure out the rules they won't be too terribly bad off because of spell and grammar checks. Then their mother the evil English-major witch will get on their case as well.
-
Indeed, it is pretentious to think that studying Shakespeare will somehow enable an individual to communicate in ways that learning how to write creatively will not, and the same goes for many other silly (but perhaps interesting) things we are taught in school, such as how to multiply matrices. It is also a false dichotomy to compare creative writing with non-fiction writing: There is also such a thing as creative non-fiction (which is quite popular in literary circles, to be honest).
It has been my experience that the school districts which foster environments where students have more options and more freedom tend to promote excellence than those which emphasize only core classes.
Studying Shakespeare may not enable an individual inherently to communicate in ways that creative writing would not also teach. But learning and studying classic literature does stimulate different areas of the brain, cause different neurological connections to be made and enhance different areas of logic, rhetoric and other abilities. Reading does a very different thing to students than writing overall. That being said, writing, creative fictional, non fictional or academic non-fictional is a huge booster to a person's ability to communicate, specifically using written word (obviously). I've also seen research which suggests it can help people become more social, imaginative/original, and even intelligent.
But we have other programs which are intended for these purposes, and partly because of logical reasoning, and mostly because of tradition, we have those programs at a higher priority than creative (specifically creative fictional) writing. Adding creative writing at the cost of other programs is, I believe, a negative policy, considering most other programs we have exist for a purpose and help develop the brain in specific ways. If we could add creative writing at a non-loss to every school, we should without question. But it comes down to resources, not the least of which is time. Students spend only a certain amount of time at school, and will spend only a certain amount of time doing homework. Writing takes quite a bit of time for the average individual, and this would subtract from students' other studies if just tacked on to the current curriculum.
I maintain students who are interested in creative writing beyond their school's basic programs (which all schools should have, and some do not), they will pursue it on their own time as a hobby. I'd also like to point out a lot of students have a polarized reaction to subjects they are introduced to by schools, disliking it simply because it is suddenly "work" instead of "enjoyment". This is the case with me, for example, and reading for school. Even today, in my senior year towards my bachelors degree, I hardly ever read my text books or periodicals for class, despite the fact that I fill my time reading similar materials on the same subjects for my own enjoyment. I'm not saying we shouldn't offer it, but definitely we shouldn't make it, or any art, mandatory in upper level education. I don't think anybody was saying we should, but I thought it warranted saying.
-
A great many habits and institutions we currently have are quite unrelated to utility. We support things because we are used to supporting them. Have you heard the anecdote about a woman who cut the end off of her roasts before cooking them? (It's a well-known piece of true folklore, but I'll share if you're unfamiliar).
The English language is filled with absurdities which are kept for tradition's sake. An example is the word "island", which, historically, contained no "s", until some brilliant educators decided that it must have been derived from the Latin insula which gives French "isle", and as such should contain an "s". In other words, "s" has never been a pronounced part of the word, and originally was not written in it either. But, alack, we are in too deep to change our ridiculous habits now.
Shakespeare, I fear, is kind of similar to "island". I must say that I wholly respect Professor Tolkien's strong distaste for the man's work.
This is not to say that there is no value to studying "literature"—I certainly believe there is. But rigidity in education never seems to be the most effective approach. Just ask any professional educator what they think of No Child Left Behind, eh?
-
I feel like we may be arguing the same thing. I don't think rigidity is a good idea in education, or really in nearly any aspect of life. But I do feel as though there is room for a standard base to spring from in a person's education. Whether or not we continued to study Shakespeare, we DO need to continue to study literature the way we study Shakespeare. I could really care less if the writer himself was dropped from curriculum--it is the process of studying, and not inherently what is being studied, that has the proper psychological outcomes. If you would rather see kids read and study more literature of a different kind, that is fine. But studying literature and writing achieve very separate outcomes on a neurological level.
I don't know the story.
No Child Left Behind has a lot of problems, I feel, many of which are as bad or worse than the rigidity it causes. As I said before, creative writing should have a place in curriculum, and if the resources are available (which in a lot of places they are not) it should be also offered as an optional class. But I don't support the addition of it to schools at the expense of other important programs, such as the sciences. I also feel there are more important optional classes many schools do not have, such as multiple foreign languages, Asian and African history and arts study, etc. that I would rather see as optional curriculum than a creative writing class in high schools. A good example of this is I went to a very good high school, but as far as foreign language goes there was not a single Asian language offered, and which you could take Russian, French, Spanish, or German, only the Spanish branch was really taken with any seriousness by both most faculty and most students.
-
Well, we may be arguing the same thing in different ways, as I agree with your first paragraph.
The way the story goes is that the mother of a young girl, whenever she made roast, would cut off the end and place it on the side of the roast. Her daughter, being an inquisitive child, asked her why she did this. After thinking about it, she said something along the lines of "I don't really know—I think it improves the flavor or something. Your grandmother always did it." So, since she didn't know, she decided to ask her mother. When she asked her mother, her mother said she always did it because her mother did it. So, the young mother went to her grandmother, who happened to still be living at this time, and asked her. Her grandmother then replied that she did it because the roast would not have fit into the pot otherwise!
I agree that NCLB had lots of problems. But I think that often we emphasize things which we, in our own fields or mentalities, judge to be important, which really aren't so. Many things taught in the sciences and maths are of this nature—I have not used the vast majority of the math I learned in high school (I was an advanced math student) since, and this includes taking the GRE (to get into grad school)! If I was less inquisitive, I'd have used less of the science, but the fact is that there's a lot of the sciences I've never used, either. However, I use the French I learned in High School all the time. I use the Welsh (an obscure language!) I learned in college WAY more often than I'm faced with the possibility of multiplying matrices or burning things to figure out how many calories they contain. And, obviously, I use my experiences in Creative Writing all the time, as well.
The fact of the matter that any given bit of knowledge is only going to end up being useful to a limited portion of the population later on in life. While I definitely think a basic knowledge of Math (say to the level of Algebra), History and Government, English (for literacy's sake), and Science (esp. understanding the Scientific Method) are critical to education, there's currently a lot of mandatory "fluff" in our education system which is biased towards traditional education. Can our society not have artists as well as mathematicians? (For what it's worth, a friend of mine who is currently getting his PhD in Math [specializing in Topology] tells me that art is, generally, more useful in life than advanced math.)
-
I see Gorgon's point. The point of school is not (necessarily) to learn skills/techniques or gain knowledge that will directly help you in life (although that is very often the case). At school, a variety of subjects help train your brain to think in ceratin ways and (like Gorgon said) to help make eventual automatic connections.
Chestknight–Knowing about/how to multiply matrices is NOT useless–it actually comes into play very often when working with computers.
-
You seem to have misinterpreted my statements: I never said that learning to work with matrices was useless, simply that the vast majority of educated Americans will never need (or want) to use it.
-
OK, fine. But if they don't use teach it because "the vast majority of educated Americans will never need (or want) to use it," then those who DO need to use it in their field are at a disadvantage. So really, you can't say what to teach and what not to teach based on that statement.
-
Please read my arguments more carefully.
What I am stating is that we should not be unfairly biased towards the maths and sciences when what is being taught in them is frequently no more applicable than what is being taught in the humanities or arts.
So, in other words: Don't say that all the stuff in the sciences and maths are being taught because they're useful, because an awful lot of it (especially the advanced stuff) isn't.
So, that established, don't say that the humanities and arts shouldn't be taught more because they're not useful, because a lot of stuff in the humanities and arts is at least as useful as a lot of what is currently taught in the maths and sciences.
-
My apologies. I'm generally trying to cram in some posting in between my schoolwork, so I read kind of fast. My bad.
-
I'd like to point out that while I am a working artist (a musician), and I am studying a "soft science" (psychology), I understand that a majority of what you learn in math and science can be unused in later life. However, in the process of learning these things, my brain had physical, notable changes which do not occur when studying arts. These changes allow me to think more quickly on a day-to-day basis about problem-solving, data reading (including social datums, my surroundings etc.), and the ability to remember and quantify larger amount of materials and numbers. The arts affect different areas of the brain and do other impressive changes. However, the goals of our educational system are in a large part to raise our skills in the areas I already listed, which are related to the sciences.
I think the arts are more important to me in my day to day life. In fact, I know they are. I feel like the arts are more important to most people, be they film, music, literature, etc. But learning them doesn't achieve all of the goals we would like achieved as well as learning the sciences does. There should be more arts in addition to the sciences, even if they are after-school programs. But it comes down to resources--fortunately, students now have the internet to learn from, and you can get a jump start in any artistic setting by lessons you can find on it.
-
To counter what you have said, I'd like to point out that I feel that I have gained some of my greatest critical thinking and analytical skills (useful in a variety of contexts) through the systematic study of language and history. There are analytical reasoning skills which are invaluable which you pick up from studying History (and historiography) critically which you can not learn from studying the hard sciences.
-
Since writing and language are, at their heart, codes that we interpret in order to communicate, utilizing these skills should have a similar impact on the brain that math has. More importantly, mastering communication allows you to share your ideas with others more effectively. Ever have difficulty getting someone to understand your point, or explaining something? More time spent practicing creative writing as a child may well have increased skills that allow you to explain things in different ways. It would also get you into the habit of looking at things in different ways. It comes as no surprise to me that the assault on the Arts in school over the last fewdecades has gone in tandem with the degradation of our country's education system. If you look at every country that beats us in this (and there are quite a few), they all have the Arts as requirements for students at an early age. In Japan, for example, every student learns to play an instrument, even if it is just a Recorder. Playing and listening to complex music has been proven to help the brain work better. I think we are too focused on math and science at too early an age, to be honest. School has become more repetition and memorization than real learning and understanding. Why do you think "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" doesn't hand out a million dollars every week?
-
But this country is sorely lacking a population that is literate in math and sciences. How many people would have gotten a ARM in the last few years if they could have done the math? How many people don't understand a word of the whole global warming thing because they cannot understand the science behind it? I don't want to trust the talking heads for analysis of scientific issues, because most of the time they don't know what the heck they are talking about either.
I personally think we need more math and science teachers that know how to teach well and connect the theoretical with the reality of how these things are everywhere today.
I love science and the humanities. I've found that it is easier to self-teach art and humanities than it is math. Once you can read a lot of fields are available, but I don't know of many who can teach themselves calculus.
-
Good points, readerMom. I would add, how many people would play the lottery if they were good at math?
I think I disagree about the self-teaching thing, though. It seems to me that if you know the basic principles of math, you could learn more advanced principles from a textbook - especially if you were diligent about doing the problems and checking your work in the back of the textbook. I believe this would be true even with calculus, assuming you already knew your algebra.
On the other hand, I think some of the humanities are very difficult to self-teach, such as foreign languages - especially the listening and speaking aspects. Another would be creative writing, because without feedback from a professor and/or classmates it would be hard to know how to improve one's work. The same goes for music and art - you can (and should) practice on your own, but at some point it's very helpful to have a teacher's guidance and correction.
Not that I'm trying to argue for more humanities and less sciences in our educational system. I'm not sure how I feel about that discussion as a whole except that, like probably everyone here, I wish there were more time and resources to teach more of ALL those fields. I'm just addressing your comment about which subjects are easier to self-teach.
-
I also think a critical distinction needs to be made between basic math and science (up to Freshman Science and Algebra or so), and more advanced math and science. No one is arguing that it's important to know basic arithmetic and even algebra. But why require trigonometry and not language?
-
But why require trigonometry and not language?
Because in my experience, every male homeowner I know has tried to install his own sprinkler system and a knowledge of angles, theorems and such would have been of great help;)
-
Well, as a male who has taken trigonometry who's seen enough well-educated males working on home improvements, I can tell you right now that it doesn't help. =þ
-
The fact is that language and arts do NOT cause the brain to develop in the same ways, not even remotely the same regions, as sciences. Just because you believe they should doesn't mean they do. If you read even the most basic research on brain anatomy or development, you'll see a huge difference between the uses of arts and creative analysis and sciences or logical analysis. Just as a different area of the brain is used to distinguish the motion of an object and its distance, different areas of the brain are stimulated (sometimes in different ways) when talking about lingual code against mathematical code. The skills learned aren't inherently what I'm talking about when I talk about brain development. There are physiological changes in the brain as it develops, and these changes allow you to perform certain tasks better, whether or not you're actually learning anything at all.
Also, I'd like to point out that, while I may not have made this clear, one is just as capable of teaching oneself math and science as the arts. However, people are, in general, more compelled by the arts on a personal level. This is why people don't have advanced calculus as a hobby as often as they do composition or still life photography. Students not given a required mandate of scientific material are likely to let it fall by the wayside, which is not as much the case with the arts.
I would put foreign language requirements that we aren't meeting far above creative writing in priority, and for several reasons. Not only do foreign languages enhance a world-view and encourage multiculturalism, they, also, have a separate impact on the brain--and the longer you don't learn a foreign language, the less likely it is you will be able to. I'm not saying there's a certain age you can't learn a language anymore, but it does become more and more difficult as your brain develops. Also, it's simply more useful to a larger portion of the population to know a second language.
I don't think school has "become" more repetition and memorization than learning and understanding, I am under the impression public schools have been like this, in the majority, throughout the entirety of their existence.
-
True, reading about 19th century schools make ours seem like little islands of anarchy. I also think that self-motivated students and those with helpful parents will always do better in life, if not necessarily in school. The schools struggle to help those without a support system and trying to take over parental duties has also squeezed out extra teaching time.
-
The schools struggle to help those without a support system and trying to take over parental duties has also squeezed out extra teaching time.
Excellent point! I completely agree! I would add that one neglected parental duty that schools have had to compensate for is discipline. There would be a lot more time for education if all students already knew how to behave themselves with decorum and respect.
Also, I'd like to point out that, while I may not have made this clear, one is just as capable of teaching oneself math and science as the arts. However, people are, in general, more compelled by the arts on a personal level. This is why people don't have advanced calculus as a hobby as often as they do composition or still life photography.
This made me laugh because it's true. It also made me want to pull out my college calculus textbook and start doing problems in my spare time, just so I could say that was my hobby. :)
-
Gorgon, please send me some links to the studies you are using. I am always interested in this sort of thing, especially now that I have to young children. You say that music affects different areas of the brain, yet it is shown that those who learn music and listen to complex musical compositions actually show greater intelligence. It is also well known that you remember things much more easily if you sing them, make them rhyme, or create Mnemonics (which I dare say is artistic, in a way). We still know so little about the brain, it could be possible that the pathways enhanced by music and art help the brain better access the memory needed to more effectively use the logical centers of the brain.
SarahG - I agree to a point, but what if the problem is how much we are teaching, but how it is being taught? Math and Science need to be applied in order to be used, yet schools do not focus enough on this fact. They stick to memorize, repeat, then move on to the next thing. As for the mortgage crisis, math had little to do with it. This is an example of what happens when you are made to feel you deserve something no matter the consequence, or when you want something so bad you make yourself believe the risks won't apply to you. There were almost daily news stories warning people of the risks or ARM, SubPrime and interest only loans, yet they still were taken.
I totally agree with the discipline thing. I have several teachers in my family, as well as some friends, and they complain about the lack of discipline all the time. What's worse, the parents actually castigate the teachers for administering any discipline! It appears their little darlings are perfect, and the teacher is just singling them out. Parental responsibility, responsibility in general, is the real problem.
-
Shaggy: It's true that not all gifted programs are great, but readerMom is talking about one that she has personal experience with, and which has thus far produced at least two internationally published authors. I think that gives her plenty of reason to use it as an example of a good program.
-
Oh, I recognize that. I'm not saying the program wasn't worthwhile (I didn't say that, did I?).
-
The fact is that language and arts do NOT cause the brain to develop in the same ways, not even remotely the same regions, as sciences. Just because you believe they should doesn't mean they do.
Of course they don't! On the exact same note, the sciences don't develop the brain in remotely the same regions or ways as the arts! Some of these "right-brain" changes are critical to problem solving.
However, people are, in general, more compelled by the arts on a personal level.
I really am not convinced of this statement. I have a friend who studies quantum physics for fun. I know plenty of people that get into programming on their own. Ever met a Linux user? That's a hobby. I have learned more about statistics on my own to better analyize the statistics of RPG's and board games. I know literally hundreds of people, personally, who have studied linguistics (which is not an art or part of the humanities) or language as a hobby. I've heard the statistic, and I believe it's true (from my own experiences), that about 1 in 10 individuals create their own languages. While this may seem like a creative endeavor, for a great many individuals, it's a highly analytical, and even mathematical thing. And trust me, when you get into phonetic sound changes, you're on par with algebra. I myself am very interested in Botany and Zoology, and I spend countless hours learning about spiders (this coming from someone who majored in English and History in order to avoid taking any more math). I'm not that unusual, either.
The fact of the matter is that tons of people are passionate about the sciences, and learn them as hobbies, but they don't learn a lot of the kinds of science taught in school, because most of that science is useless to most people. People learn about useful science on their own, however, almost as much as people get involved with art. If there is much of a difference between the two, I expect it's simply a matter that science is overtaught in school, where the arts and humanities are undertaught, or taught poorly. People are more likely to go out of their way to fill in gaps in their knowledge.
Students not given a required mandate of scientific material are likely to let it fall by the wayside, which is not as much the case with the arts.
I've seen absolutely no evidence that this is correct. Case in point: Latin. When Latin stopped being taught in school, Latin literacy dropped drastically, despite its utility on a great number of levels (learning many other languages more easily, the ability to read a wealth of Latin literature, religious associations [for Catholics], etc.)
I would put foreign language requirements that we aren't meeting far above creative writing in priority, and for several reasons. Not only do foreign languages enhance a world-view and encourage multiculturalism, they, also, have a separate impact on the brain--and the longer you don't learn a foreign language, the less likely it is you will be able to. I'm not saying there's a certain age you can't learn a language anymore, but it does become more and more difficult as your brain develops. Also, it's simply more useful to a larger portion of the population to know a second language.
I agree with all of this, though I do think that much of the way English and History are taught in our school systems is misguided and unfortunate, and believe that encouraging more creative writing in English would increase literacy more.
-
Case in point: Latin. When Latin stopped being taught in school
Jade, I feel I must correct you on this. Of the two private schools I have attended, both have offered Latin as a course, although one of the schools only offered it in fifth grade. In fact, in the school I currently attend, Latin is a required course for grades 7 and 8 (9-12 is optional).
-
I agree to a point, but what if the problem is how much we are teaching, but how it is being taught? Math and Science need to be applied in order to be used, yet schools do not focus enough on this fact. They stick to memorize, repeat, then move on to the next thing. As for the mortgage crisis, math had little to do with it. This is an example of what happens when you are made to feel you deserve something no matter the consequence, or when you want something so bad you make yourself believe the risks won't apply to you. There were almost daily news stories warning people of the risks or ARM, SubPrime and interest only loans, yet they still were taken.
I totally agree with the discipline thing. I have several teachers in my family, as well as some friends, and they complain about the lack of discipline all the time. What's worse, the parents actually castigate the teachers for administering any discipline! It appears their little darlings are perfect, and the teacher is just singling them out. Parental responsibility, responsibility in general, is the real problem.
Amen! I think that the way things are taught is a huge part of the problem. I can tell you right now that the current way History is taught in most schools is no good at all.
-
Jade, I feel I must correct you on this. Of the two private schools I have attended, both have offered Latin as a course, although one of the schools only offered it in fifth grade. In fact, in the school I currently attend, Latin is a required course for grades 7 and 8 (9-12 is optional).
You need to understand that these are highly unusual exceptions. Few schools in the US teach Latin any more at all, and almost none require it.
(Update: Some searching reveals that Latin learning is, however, on the rise. It used to be abysmally low (when I was in school), but is starting to recover.)
-
When were you in school? Because many of my classmates took Latin at their previous schools, too. And, many visitors who have visited our school/grade are currently taking Latin (or have in the past.)
-
I graduated from high school almost 10 years ago.
Where do you live again? I don't think a single public school in our County offers Latin.
-
Weston, Connecticut. But I go to school at Hopkins School in West Haven, Connecticut (like 45 minutes away).
Well most of the above-mentioned people go to private school….
-
Ah, private schools are different. They value a classical education more, methinks. The increase in Latin learners might actually be directly related to the increase of charter schools in this country, though I couldn't be sure.
-
I did the public school thing. There was only one school in the county that offered Latin.
My schools only offered french and spanish....
-
My school was the same. Only french and spanish, which was a little odd considering my city is predominantly Roman Catholic, and they even had Latin Mass when I was a kid. My school sucked anyway. The school committee and Mayors went out of their way to smash education whenever possible, and it hasn't changed much. It still amazes me that 5500 dollars per student is a huge cost but they seem to have no problem spending ten times that much to keep them in Juvenile detention, and sometimes even adult prison, especially when a good quality education would have kept many of those kids out of trouble. It's embarrassing, really.
-
Ummm…what town is this? Not to be weird or anything, but I want to make sure NOT to live there when I'm an adult….
I'm not very up-to-date with the public school news, honestly. And the school I attend is a rather special place, if I do say so myself. 8)
-
This is a generally a discussion of public schools. Private schools are a much different situation because they have more resources, generally a more motivated student population as a whole, and can set their own standards of education.
Gorgon, please send me some links to the studies you are using. I am always interested in this sort of thing, especially now that I have to young children. You say that music affects different areas of the brain, yet it is shown that those who learn music and listen to complex musical compositions actually show greater intelligence. It is also well known that you remember things much more easily if you sing them, make them rhyme, or create Mnemonics (which I dare say is artistic, in a way). We still know so little about the brain, it could be possible that the pathways enhanced by music and art help the brain better access the memory needed to more effectively use the logical centers of the brain.
I don't have any specific sources seeing how much, if not all, of what I've been saying is just a general overview of some common knowledge within the field of psychology. I'll do a little research and pull up some specific studies or papers when I have a little more time in order to get to you who found what and when. It's something I should know, anyway.
I would definitely recommend discover magazine, though (discovermagazine.com) if you're interested in anything the brain. They do a good job putting out articles covering some big-name psychologists (I recently read a great one covering Antonio Damasio's research) in pretty simple terms. There was one specifically, that once I find it I will tell you what month/year it was, about the healing capacity of music for stroke victims. It appears that music is so removed from language in the brain's function that stroke victims who suffered a left-side stroke to their Brocas area (which handles speech and is only found on the left side of the brain in the posterior region) and had difficulty speaking or could not speak could actually, to their delight, sing without effort. Because the brain registers music so differently, musical words are actually created and sent out through the opposite side of the brain in many cases.
Listening to music, learning music theory, and playing musical instruments does raise intelligence, creativity, among many, many other benefits. I could talk for days about the importance of music to brain development, personal development, cultural development, etc. But it still doesn't impact the brain in the same regions or in the same ways that science does and doesn't create the same outcomes.
Everything from Here Down is Mildly Unrelated, except partially related to what darx said. You may not be interested if you don't want to get off topic--I'm writing this only after I've accidentally drilled out a few paragraphs...
The Method of Loci, in which you imagine items which need to be remembered in a familiar location, then walk through the location in your mind to remember them, is widely known to be one of the oldest and most effective memory devices. Yet, we wouldn't say studying architecture or geography would be an immense help to every area of study. One of the primary reasons memory devices like this work is they ingrain a piece of information to a chunk of knowledge already held, such as a song or place, and thus create a "cognitive path" to this information. It is the same principle that allows you to smell your ex-boyfriend's cologne and have memories of him--it is not inherently because of the music itself that this works, but because of the created relationship between two items which become "filed" together.
As far as short handing or using Mnemonic devices--these again play on a principle separate from the actual use of creativity to memorize. The idea is instead of remembering nine things, such as the planets (there was nine when I was younger--I know that since there have been ten and now there's eight), I can remember one phrase, such as "my very educated mother just serves us nasty pickles." Our brains can hold in our working, 0r active, memories between five and nine items, depending on the person (on average seven, hence the phrase in psychology "Seven Plus or Minus Two"--see Miller's research). The size of items is irrelevant as long as I understand them, which means I can think of Freudian dream analysis and the 1998 Pistons in whole if I understand both well. The trick here is I've taken nine things I don't know and linked them to one item, thus allowing me to put the entire chunk of information into my long term memory at the same time, and creating a link between those separately filed planets and this phrase. Later, when I think of the phrase, my brain will automatically be able to link to the planets, which will all count as one piece of information in my working memory. It really has very little to do with the creativity of the process and has everything to do with the capacity of the brain--in this manner, someone else can create a device which I can use without being creative at all (such as Oh, Be a Fine Girl, Kiss Me ordering the classes of stars--I didn't come up with it, but I'll remember it forever).
Our knowledge of the brain is truly mid evil when compared to our knowledge of, say, our digestive system. That being said, we have a much keener idea of how the brain works than a lot of people seem to think. More on this, if you want it, later. I've written a lot out of context with the general area of discussion, I just realized.
I'm way off topic. Sorry.
-
You are passionate about it, though. I don't disagree that different areas of the brain are affected. In fact, that is all the more reason for more well-rounded educations, especially in the elementary stages. Between ages two and seven I believe, your brain is just beginning to compartmentalize, so stimulating all areas can only help this happen more efficiently. I think the main point I am trying to make is that overstimulating one section of the brain and ignoring others is counterproductive. It would be interesting to see the PET scans (I imagine that is how the data you are referring to was gathered) show some activity in the creative sections of the brain when someone is attempting to discover a different way to solve a math problem, or if the math section is used when someone is writing a poem that requires a rigid, numbered structure. See my point? Besides, most math and science classes, as I said before, are memorization classes. It's more like math and science history than applied science. I am genuinely curious about the following: Polynomials are huge in Algebra class (remember the FOIL method). Despite the thousands of equations that I solved in my schooling, I never asked, nore was I told, when this equation could be applied. What situation requires this to obtain an answer? I should look it up, I guess. If anyone knows, feel free to tell us.
-
As far as the foil method, when solving algebraically you can use it anytime you have a multi-part phrase (polynomial). Technically, you can use it anytime, since if you have 2 x 5 = 10, you can also do (2)(5) = (2+0) (5+0) = 10+0+0+0 = 10. Or (2)(5) = (1+1)(3+2) = 3+2+3+2 = 10. But, that is a really roundabout way of doing things, and you usually would only use it if variables are involved, otherwise there are simpler ways to solve. But, yeah, technically you could use that method for any multiplication problem, at least as far as I can think of right now. Also, on an amusing note, I was just typing this up and realized I, at multiple points, accidentally typed "2x5=15." Whoops.
I think we need to get foreign languages in our kindergartens, if not our preschools, because that is really the most applicable time-oriented brain development area. Learning to speak is very time-oriented as well, so is learning to recognize faces (ever wonder why if you lived near white people your whole life, black people tend to look the same, or why someone who lived on a farm can tell which cow is which without effort, while you struggle to tell them apart?). But, I've never seen anything to say learning science, math, rules and regulations of grammar, or reading is time-oriented. That doesn't mean it's not, I just haven't seen anything to show so. So, yeah, especially in the early years we need a more well-rounded curriculum based, probably until somewhere between third and fifth grade, around language (especially non-native language) and art--in my opinion. But in high schools, a more science-based curriculum makes sense, I feel, despite how much I would love to see more arts in schools.
Also, the brain has a tendency to double-up in some cases. It is just like the stroke victims who could sing words but not speak them, because that capacity was in a different area of the brain, in a lot of cases an activity which uses a certain thought-process a lot (such as poetry with rigid numerical structure) will be able to continue without the area of the brain which normally does that function. I don't know if this is the case with the examples you gave, but from what I do know, I would say it's very likely to be the case. Another interesting example of this is motor-memory against other types of memory, where somebody who can't remember his wife's face could get out of bed in his home, go to the kitchen in the dark, make a cup of coffee, clean up, and go out to get the paper without actually being able to to tell you where he is, or how to get where he needs to be. Because the brain needs to call upon memory to perform motor tasks, it has a separate area for that specific kind of memory. I'd suspect that if the brain needed a specific kind of math for poetry, it would have a more effective way of doing this math than by firing up all cylinders and wasting a ton of relative time with computations in two very different parts of the brain, including a back-and-forth of information. For good reason, it doesn't like to do that much, especially when involving the outer layers of the brain.
The reason I've been, up to this point, so adamant about students doing their artistic learning on their own time if resources aren't available in schools is because the question was originally asked about high schools (or, rather, in interpreted it that way because of the talk about "English class"--not something which existed in my elementary experience because all my classes were one). More art in young children, less history and memorization of facts, way more foreign language--and I'd like to see our math and science at this stage to become more "understanding and puzzle" based than "memorization of rules" based. I'd like students to, instead of learning multiplication tables, learn the process of multiplying very well. Tables should come after a really solid understanding, rather than as a quick-cut to speed. Subjects which require a lot of memorization and little else should still be taught, but as the minority rather than the majority in young students. If you make them smart, they'll be able to memorize later. It's not like their memories aren't already getting enough work from life that they wont develop... But that's just me.
-
It is interesting you should say the theory should come first. My children have a very geeky grandfather and he loves to play math games with them. My oldest child seems to have an intuitive understanding of math, he understands the theory very easily and so did the times tables quickly and easily. My second child did not understand the theory so well, and is struggling (OK, not struggling, but having to work at it). My second child refuses to play the math games and has to count on her fingers to do addition and subtraction. I can totally see how a knowledge of the theory informs the ability to learn the specifics. I had the same problem with calculus, never got the theory down so i struggled until I got to differential calculus, which I loved.
This discussion is very interesting to me as it gives a lot of general ideas that I can find specific examples f in my own family. Having 5 kids gives you a number of case studies.
-
I am genuinely curious about the following: Polynomials are huge in Algebra class (remember the FOIL method). Despite the thousands of equations that I solved in my schooling, I never asked, nore was I told, when this equation could be applied. What situation requires this to obtain an answer? I should look it up, I guess. If anyone knows, feel free to tell us.
The way it was explained to me when I asked was that the Foil method was a way of solving a problem. It got you thinking in a logical manner to solve said problem. It was also said that many higher forms of math also use similar forms of problem solving. So that the FOIL method is really just a building block for later on, while at the same time gearing the mind into a certain mode of thinking; for problem solving. At least that was the way it was described to me.
-
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanations, both of you. I also agree with your elementary education ideas. I would add more hands-on learning as well. Also, homework should be restricted to simple projects. No hour a day for a first grader, that's absurd. It's hard enough to get kids to go out and play as it is.
I still disagree about high school curriculum, but for a different reason. I had stated earlier that, by the age of 15, we should have a pretty good understanding of a child's skill set, and should be able to gear the learning more to his or her strengths. Not everyone needs to be really good in math or science. We have devices that can help us with that fact. If someone is good with their hands, or can write really well, shouldn't we be honing those people's best skills instead of delaying their development by forcing them to continue on a path they were not meant to take? Now don't get me wrong, I understand the potential for hack guidance counselors and school administrators to make snap judgements on students and bury them in Vocational school just because They are a little behind in 5th grade. There should be no shortage of resources in schools, period. If a well-rounded education can't be obtained in the current set up, then we should change it. There should be no compromise on this, ever. Adults can be so foolish. I am 32, and fully aware that the kids in school now are going to be supporting me when I am old and gray, and I would prefer they were enlightened, understanding people.
-
I have actually heard, from many people, that school in general stress college so much, kids who want vocational ed are discouraged. Plumbers, mechanics, carpenters etc. are losing apprentices because schools are pushing one ciriculum, no matter what the students' abilities are. Its a one-size fits all education that really suits no one.
-
I think, because by the very nature of a public education system, we have to, in large part, have a one-size-fits all education, I'd rather see everybody become well-rounded, with an emphasis on the subjects that have strong ties to specific parts of brain development, such as puzzle solving. Sciences, specifically math theory, are the best way to stimulate this. The way we currently educate our children makes them, in theory, a jack of all trades and a master of none. I prefer this to handpicking people to train for specific jobs. I want children to have the time to develop while not being inherently trained for a job in their public education years. They can then choose what path THEY want to go down, once they've had a bit of exposure to everything and they've had the subject exposure to organize their brain into logical machines capable of handling the academic world and capable of solving problems in their everyday lives. There's no point in rushing kids into a decision (funnily enough, I feel I was rushed into choosing a to go to college for psychology, and while I absolutely love the material, sometimes I wish I had been given more time to decide my path--imagine if I was being trained for it when I was thirteen instead of seventeen). If we start focusing on what children say they want to do, or what we think children will be best at, at a younger age, what will happen when a large portion of them inevitably decide they don't want to take that route once they hit eighteen or nineteen? They wont have a general support of knowledge to launch into other fields like they do now.
I would love to see more elective courses offered in schools to give students a little bit more "pre-training" options for a career they believe they would be interested in. But, again, it all comes down to resources. How much should taxpayers give in order to help out the small percentage of people who inevitably become fiction writers for a living? What about stand-up comedians? I would love to see these types of programs offered, but it is something students will have to learn, to a great degree, on their own. But, again, perhaps this is what makes these activities so enticing--the fact that they are hobbies, and not work. This could be why some people do what they do, because they learned to love it instead of being taught to do it.
Of course kids are pushed into college--on average, kids who go to college have a higher standard of living. There will always be kids who don't want to go to college and decide to do a trade instead, just as there will always be people who decide to go into the military. The way I see it, if there is a shortage, then we are advancing as a people in the amount of education the average person is getting, which is a good thing. There will always need to be plumbers and carpenters, and if there is a shortage now, there will be a surge later as kids find out, "hey, I can just go be a plumber without going to college and there's a lot of room to work!" It's cyclical like that, and I'm honestly not worried about it.
-
I think one thing we have to keep in mind is that we sort of generalize 'public schools/education systems' and 'private schools/education systems' when there really is an enormous variety within the two categories…. (Not pointing any fingers; I myself have done this.)
-
If you don't think puzzle solving is stimulated by trades, you've never tried to run a pipe under a sink. Carpentry requires a lot of math, as does electrical work. It also requires a hands-on skill that should also be developed as early as possible. We are not just saying that there is a shortage of these special skills, we are also saying that the skillset is weakening, because exposure to the craft comes too late in life, and they either can't get the mastery, or never realize they have the skill and end up working at Lowes for minimum wage. The reality is that the current model is not effective. Psychology is just one small area of the whole picture when looking at the best practices in education. But, if you want to stick to the Psychology front, I believe your subconscious believes Science and Math should be the focus because you excel at them. You are also (and I mean no offense by this) looking at life through the rose-colored glasses of youth, where everyone can be successful if they just try hard enough. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen, especially when the choices given are so limited. Most of the electricians I work with started out when they were 16 and 17, and they make absurd amounts of money, so there is nothing wrong with choosing that, or any other trade. You can always go to college part time to improve yourself, if you wish.
-
The ideal would be to have teachers and parent who work together to help each child excel, then guide the child as they get older to a suitable emphasis. I all this talk of the school we have to remember the part the parents play. In Las Vegas they have a problem getting kids to graduate high school and to college because there are so many parents with good jobs at the casinos. The parents don't see a need, so why should they get the kids to study?
My children's teachers are universally grateful I show up to parent-teacher conferences, much less that I make my children study and think the teacher's opinion about discipline issues is the most important. (I just went today) Most of the deficiencies of the public education system can be remedied by good parents, and the best system in the world can't make up for bad parents.
-
I find myself agreeing with Darxbane and ReaderMom. I must say, however, that I totally disagree with any assertion that we should teach less history. History is a critical area of study, and if more people had studied it intelligently, our population would not be remotely so moronic.
That said, I think the way History is being taught today in primary/secondary schooling is totally wrong, and doesn't teach the important things that History has to teach us. We also organize it stupidly.
with an emphasis on the subjects that have strong ties to specific parts of brain development, such as puzzle solving. Sciences, specifically math theory, are the best way to stimulate this.
Not at all. The liberal arts are one of the best ways of stimulating this, by encouraging students to think outside the box. In Gifted programs around the country, word games are one of the ways problem solving is encouraged among students.
How much should taxpayers give in order to help out the small percentage of people who inevitably become fiction writers for a living? What about stand-up comedians?
How much should taxpayers pay for the small percentage of people who inevitably become mathematicians for a living? Or professional sports players? Or zoologists? It really seems to me, Gorgon, that what you're advocating is terribly hypocritical.
There will always need to be plumbers and carpenters, and if there is a shortage now, there will be a surge later as kids find out, "hey, I can just go be a plumber without going to college and there's a lot of room to work!"
Ignoring self-reliance. I, for one, was never taught by my father how to build or repair things, so if it's not an electronic gadget, I don't have the foggiest for how to do household maintenance work, or to work on improvements. I regret this.
-
I agree with Jade. History is very important....So's geography, I think. Maybe that's just because I'm a geography nut, but I think it's problem when an 18-year old who lives in Idaho doesn't know where Seattle is....Or even the Puget Sound.
I also agree that there are definite problems with the teaching method of a lot of different subjects. I think most of this stems from NCLB, and I really hope that that Act will be replaced in the near future. It sounded good at first, but it's just been terrible for a lot of different school systems. I'm just glad I was old enough that I didn't see a whole lot of the testing. What I did see was enough to drive me insane, though...Stupid I-SAT's.
Also, when I try to think about how they could better the systems, I have a bit of trouble. Maybe it's just the school district I grew up in, but there's a good system already in place--or it was when I was there. I think basic education should be covered in elem school, and then the junior high/middle schools should have a ton of exploratory courses. They should have the core classes (math, english, history, science), and then electives for students to explore a bunch of different paths where they can find things that interest them. Then, high school goes even more specialized. My district (or my old district, rather, since I graduated almost 4 years ago) had all of this. I may not have taken advantage of it to a large extent, but I know people who did. And now that a new high school is being built, the specialized courses are expanding significantly.
I know not every school district is like mine. And heck, even mine didn't have any creative writing courses.....Wait. I take that back. It did. I just wasn't able to take it, cuz there was only one class, and it was during the same hour as my choir class--which was one class I wouldn't have dropped for the world....Oh well. I took Creative Writing when I went to college, so it's all good.
Anyway. That's my take on the public education system.
-
This is actually Gorgon, because I'm a sneaky wench.
Here's the deal. Those are all great skills, they are great things to learn. It is a fact, so much so that I wouldn't have to cite it in a paper about brain development, that sciences make you a better problem solver in all aspects of life. It is not the skill, in itself, that is important.
I don't particularly like math, in fact, that's one of the reasons I went into psychology in the first place. No math except basic statistics. These are NOT the subjects I like the most, these are the subjects that are the most important to specific types of brain development. You're right, trades require puzzle solving, so do most aspects of life. That's WHY it is important to stimulate the areas of the brain that will be useful in ALL of these situations. Yeah, creative writing and puzzle games are a great way to stimulate the brain. They do not stimulate that right area of the brain. It is not what you learn, but how your build the brain, that makes these classes important, which is why math is more important that, say, creative writing for future authors. It is not for the kids who become mathematicians, it is because of the changes in the brain we can see from these subjects.
Teaching kids in school to learn a trade wasn't really ever advocated, Chestknight, but encouraging kids to pick up a trade was. I was NEVER saying, by the way, college education is the right path for everybody (I have almost dropped several times, and did not come to my college right away after high school) or advocate that college-educated people are better in some way. All I said is it makes sense for kids to be encouraged into this life because it raises their standard of living ON AVERAGE (it's not that a carpenter can't live a great life and be very happy...) and I think it is a good objective to have as much of our population as educated as possible.
I agree with readermom entirely. Great parents will take the time to encourage their kids' growth and development. They will also provide the kids with whatever they need to learn hobbies outside of school.
I never said everybody can succeed if they try, you can ask the nice young man I'm with (as I believe it annoys him) on my stances about being locked into poverty. I'm possibly one of the biggest advocates of the fact that the system holds some individuals down from birth. Does that mean that we should from a young age not give them the chance to try and make whatever life they wish, rather than training them for a job before they're old enough to really make a choice?
As a final note, my strengths are in the arts. I excel in music, I always have, and it is my goal to work in the field of music because I love it so deeply that I pour quite literally almost every moment of spare time I have into it. I usually spend more than forty hours a week in music related jobs in addition to my schooling. I don't date, a large part because I feel it would interrupt my focus on music. I often put my schoolwork second to my bands. I spend all of my spare money on musical instruments. So, if my subconscious was pushing a subject, it would be music almost certainly. I happen to do decently in school without effort, but the courses I do the worst in, since youth, are math and science (because of the amount of homework for points in courses like this, which I have never done). Also, when I was younger I was a good artist and an award-winning photographer, in addition to a decent writer. I love the arts. A lot. I understand the importance of the sciences to substantiate the potential of the brain.
It is not what you learn, it is the final effect, which makes math and science important. Psychology is not the only way to look at this point, but is a VERY valuable viewpoint a lot of people do not know or understand, and one often alienated rather that embraced.
-
I agree with Jade. History is very important....So's geography, I think. Maybe that's just because I'm a geography nut, but I think it's problem when an 18-year old who lives in Idaho doesn't know where Seattle is....Or even the Puget Sound.
*Sigh*
THAT is the problem with the geography taught in Public Schools.....Everyone grows up thinking Geography is only memorizing location (states and capitols, etc.) That is less relevant to geography, and really more relevant to social studies. Location is just the barest skimming off the top of all that Geography has to offer. And no one knows how much they are missing because it is instantly equated with states and capitols.. (boring)
Yet that just reinforces the fact that Public Schooling has too much focus on memorization....
I studied Geography in College (after I got bored with Engineering) (specifically Geographic Information Science) and it is one of the most fascinating sciences out there. Most people don't even realize it is a science because all they did was memorize names....
Lip service is payed to the wonders of the tectonic plates, but the other parts of how our earth functions are almost completely ignored... :P
But we can't teach useful stuff...no, lets just have them memorize great swaths of data....
-
Well, the reason people don't realize that, I think, is because it is taught as part of "Earth Sciences" in public schools (to my knowledge). Honestly, I think Geography should have its own semester long course in school science because you are right, it is an interesting science.
-
When I was in 9th grade, my science course was Earth Science, but I'm pretty sure that the "History/Social Studies" course was World Geography. I could be wrong about that, but I seem to recall talking about geography in that class. Granted, that was 7 years ago, so my memory could be messed up.
Anyway, I think that's the only actual geography course I've taken in school. I took Geology about 3 years ago in college, and I thought that was fascinating. A lot of people correlate Geology to the study of rocks, which it's not really. That's part of it, but there's so much more. Like natural disasters. Talk about one awesome class (I took it as a class after I studied it in Geology).
It's sad that public schools teach subjects only halfway, making the kids who graduate have these horrible misconceptions of what the studies REALLY entail. Yeah, I was a fan of geography in school, but that was because my memorization skills are insane. Knowing more about it beyond the memorization aspect has simply made me more interested in it....although I will admit that I still like the memorization part the most--but not the state capitols stuff. I go for the whole world--locations, cities, whatever. So much fun.
-
Little wil, the History/Social Studies course IS world geography. I know 'cause I'm taking it. :D ;D 8)