If you were in charge of Education

What would you change about pre-college schooling?  For example, what classes would you offer prior to college?

Philosophy
Sociology
Game theory
Physics
Business management
Stock market/real estate
Calculus
Computer hardware
Programming
Electronics
Logic
Study techniques
Vocabulary
Chaos theory
Quantum physics
Overview of everything in existence

I think it is just fine. Maybe a patriotism class should be added.

Pre-college? As in high-school? Or between high-school and college?

LOGIC LOGIC LOGIC.

High schoolers just aren't learning how to use critical thinking, and that's why America is fucked up right now.  (I don't know about other countries.)  Also, from the list, Calculus and Physics.  And maybe Philosophy.  And most of the rest as electives.

Algebra should be taught sooner. There is no reason that kids shouldn't start learning algrebra in 5th grade. That leaves much more room for a variety of math.

More stringent high school testing, they're just going to flunk out anyways so instead of wasting tax dollars and runing other kids learning then just kick em off to a trade school so they can learn to pump gas.

IF I WERE IN CHARGE OF EDUCATION I'D KICK YOUR ASS

I would fix computing classes so they actually teach you stuff about computers instead of just providing MS Office training.

>>8
truth

>>4
I would expand logic into a class on introducing discrete math at the high school level.  Not compulsory but 'highly recommended' for students planning on doing any science, math or engineering degree.  Too many kids going into university thinking CS = programming.

>>6
Marry me.

>>8
You too.

I am in high school and we already have
Physics
Business management
Stock market/real estate
Calculus
Computer hardware
Programming
Study techniques

These are the ones i know we have FOR SURE, not sure about others. Don't American schools have those?

Here's what I'd (try to) do/change:

Teacher's Unions reform. 

laws involving better pay and minimal requirements, in particular for HISTORY teachers.  Too often, it's the Coach who teaches you the really, really relevant death of Crispus Attucks.  You should spend as much time on World History as you do on US history. 

I think that if philosophy were done right at a high school level, it would provide an excellent alternative to the English courses that teenagers love to hate.  It might have a greater social benefit in the long term, as well (critical thinking, advancing adolescent thought beyond nihilism).

United States citizens suck at geography.  On an unmarked political map of the world, you should, at some point, be tested on the following:

North America: know which one is Canada, which one is the US, and which one is Mexico (know your ass from a hole in the ground).  Seriously.  People on Jaywalking....
Europe: Identify each country by its borders, give its capital, and tell me a little something about it.  (I admit I would have to study for Eastern Europe, but that's the fun thing about bitching about education when you're an adult-you don't have to put up with the crap yourself).
Australia, Antarctica & Russia: know your ass from a hole in the ground: i.e. identify them.  Be able to tell me a little bit about them (the fact that there are science claims on certain bits of Antarctica, etc)
South America: know each country, which one/s speak Portuguese as opposed to Spanish.
Africa: Bix Nood.  Just be able to tell me which one South Africa is (lol Public School), which one's Egypt, and where the Sahara is (all them North African countries)

And then there's tech.  How shall we compete with Europe and Japan?  I think >>8 is absolutely right.  I'm not too worried about the triumvirate of physics, chem and calc.  They're there for the kids who want them, but the problem is to get HS level teachers into those areas. 

Another thing which no one has touched on is the fact that public schools have been made to shoulder exponentially more parental responsibilities over the years.  TAKE the money from those programs, INVEST in BETTER TEACHERS, and you'll have money left over for precious football.  It really is all about the teachers.  That's my sweeping generalization of the day.

Lastly, licensure and legal matters are so stringent nowadays.  The person who knows their shit should be the one to teach.

>>13
Africa: Bix Nood

I laughed out loud for real when I read this. It's 0:53 and my parents are asleep. LOL.

>>13
I'd include Japan with Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Nagoya, and Sapporo at least, plus a map of Tokyo with Shibuya outlined. This is basic education for waps.

I'd start teaching The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski in all high schools. I'd also suggest that people who don't want to learn be sent in to some sort of apprenticeship after core classes. I also think that they should start talking more about the connectivity of different areas. I've heard a lot of people complain about having to take math and science courses in high school, which is completely ridiculous.

I would personally like to see more psychology, sociology, economics, and higher geometry courses earlier in high school. We don't get the first three until junior year, and most people can't take them because of scheduling and such.

And what is with this manga/graphic novel thing in libraries? My library has few of the Classics or science (not fiction) novels and P1 computers that are rarely up to running the internet, and they give us comics?

Teaching people who don't want to learn makes no sense... unless you want to make them submit to authority.

Minors are not entitled to the same set of rights that adults are.

>>16
LOL at sociology. "I knew sociology wasn't for me when the professor said that violence was never the answer." Otherwise, I completely agree. Math and science are our physical understanding of the universe. It's not like you need to demand every kid learn calculus. A full course on linear algebra would be a fine replacement. You could even have courses on kinematics or cellular automata. I see no reason why by 6th grade, kids can's start learning algebra. I hade to know my multiplication tables by 4th grade. And one year should be plenty of time to teach mixed math operations. Libraries could do for some scientific journal subscriptions instead of comics. I supose if you want to get more kids to read then sure. But a large selection of manga is not needed for that. I like monga, but I also like more stimulating reading like the Illiad.

>>18
Truth. Minors get their rights from their guardian, who gets their rights from the state.

>>19
Truth. Minors get their rights from their guardian, who gets their rights from the state.

Rousseau motherfucker, do you read him? The state obtains its authority from the consent of the governed, who surrender or limit some of their natural rights in order to establish a stable society. "We the People" and all that.

>>20
not that the people have much of a choice. olololol

>>20
Got me there. At least this is suposed to be true in a few states.

>>20
Is that from The Social Contract? Part of Penguin's Great Ideas series of books?

I read the Nietzsche one. It rocked.
<Inst>

(this page of ranting is all assuming I could file a Sexual harassment suit against Bill Gates at all times and I basically have an endless pile of money and resources to go on. If you're wondering where I'm getting all my rant fodder from I work in a library that's not too far from the middle and highschool. I know what these little retards aren't learning.)

Start from the beginning and work our way up.

For starters. We don't give little kids enough credit. The reason why kids grow up to hate learning and school is because we sit them in a classroom and expect them to just hang out and be calm for 3/4 hour bursts while we teach them the same four things over and over again for the first three or four years of their schooling. There's no fucking reason why it took my teachers an hour a day for two years to teach me cursive, which is a subject we don't even need.

Kids should get electives from the first grade on. They already get the occasional suzuki class but I think we should go a little big further. Give the kids an hour at the end of the day,two or three days a week to pick subjects they're interested in. They can be computers, or animals, or more maths or history or whatever. The classes don't have to last more than a quarter so they can mix things up and experiment, or stick with what they've fallen in love with. We basically need to make it seem more voluntary and less like a chore they're doing because mommy says so.

All schools with bell scheduling get bombed. End of story. That was a stupid idea and nobody can properly learn shit in 45 minutes a day, especially since 20mins of that time is spent trying to get the class to calm the fuck down at the beginning and end of the period. We're block scheduling from here on out. No less than two hours will be dedicated to a subject so people can actually get into it instead of a little reading and handing out an assignment. These two hour classes will be separated with NICE LEASURELY FIFTEEN MINUTE BREAKS that actually allow the kids to stretch their legs and get their books from their lockers so the teachers can make their ridiculous binder demands without breaking the kids backs or resorting to rolling backpacks. (Why? Because I don't like them.) I had a teacher that grew up in China that would tell us every day that she could understand why our schools were in such a shitty situation because we never got any time to decompress in between classes.

Yeah, kids learn algebra in the fifth or sixth grade. Absolutely no reason why they shouldn't, and while we're at it let's stop teaching fourth and fifth graders the names of all the capitals like that's important. It's a pain in the ass for a year of their lives and they forget it a week after the test. Let's just replace all that frivolous education with world governments and possibly current events.

I'm completely revamping the honors program. Where I went to school the education was either remedial or college level. I'm completely abolishing all of that for the most part. From now on we're taking a cue from my local community college. From the seventh grade up there's English 1,2,3,4,5 (etc...) and in May there's tests for each of these. If a kid decided to take a test and gets an 80% or above on all the English 1&2 exams then he gets the joy of English 3. Just about anything can be tested upwards with the exception of a few senior level classes just to make sure the kid isn't playing the lazy genius card. The tests are optional and if you don't take them you just go for the classes in order. This way nobody's wasting space in a class that they don't need to learn.

I doubt all this would pan out in reality though.

>>24
>I doubt all this would pan out in reality though.

This touches on another reason why the U.S. public school system is so fucked up: politics. Public schools, being government institutions, get swept up in the game of "please the constituents" that most politicians like to play. This ensures that schools are perpetually mired in some sort of difficulty--budget, union, whatnot--and that the problem almost never is really fixed, because the people demand quick and easy fixes and their representatives give them these Band-Aid solutions.

To be clear, I'm blaming everyone, not just politicians. We the people need to demand real reform, even if it's potentially painful or time-consuming. To give an example, my state of California established an exit test several years ago. Passing it is supposed to be required for graduation. Problem is, the requirement's been repeatedly deferred because parents whined that their little Johnny wasn't passing the test. I've taken it, and let me tell you, the test is so goddamn easy a fucking dog could pass it. Hell, I think some first-graders could pull it off. And there are high school seniors who can't?! That, my friend, is a personal failure, not a failure of the system. This is further backed up by the fact that this year, something around 85% of incoming seniors have so far passed the test. The parents of the 15% that didn't, though, are probably going to blame the teachers, schools, government, and everyone except themselves and their children, and go whine to the Legislature, which will most likely delay the requirement again. Sigh.

In high school I would add more arts.  Also agree with the person who said he would teach kids how to use a computer in "computer" class, not just MSword

>>24
I agree with the direction you set but some things, I think are impractical.

Why give kids electives?  Seriously, what's the benefit of that?  Kids are stupid and they don't know what they want.  At that age, they should be forced to go through all the 'basic' stuff so they get all of that set.  Yes, some of the stuff will be extremely boring for most of the class but it's needed.  If kids don't learn to endure at that age, it'll be that much harder for them to learn to at an older age.

We had 75 minute periods in school and I think that was just at our limits.  Two bloody hours of class time is hard enough in university, where students are serious caue they're paying money out of their pockets, nevermind in highschool and younger.  Definitely need more than 45 minutes though.

Agree with the rest of the stuff you suggested though.  But I seriously disagree with the electives stuff at such a young age.  Kids don't know what they want.  And all the elective systems I've been in tend to be cumulative, ie. year 3 of subject x requires year 2 and year 1.  So that means if you suddenly decide to change interests, you're screwed.

>>27
I agree also with the majority of points from >>24, but I'll add my $0.02.  I agree with >>27 that First Grade is too early for electives.  I'd say around 6th or 7th.  Give the kids a chance to figure out what they like first.  45 minute classes are bullshit, but so are 2 hour classes (for kids that young).  Hour and a half.  Worked wonders at my block-scheduled high school.  As for testing, please please just make testing effective.  I wouldn't really know how to make testing effective, but there are people who would.  Oh, make all tests for each class cumulative.  Cumulative testing is more effective not noly in assessing what the kids know, but it's better at actually making the kids fucking learn!  And for god's sake, make graduation tests harder.  A retarded cat could pass the Georgia Graduation Test.

Computer Lib/Dream Machines.
Dreaming is nice, but nothing will ever change.

NECROMANCY!

Most kids are coming out of school are practically illiterate and totally ignorant of history and the world outside of mainstream pop culture. Instead, as OP suggests, of trying to teach more advanced courses (in an inevitably dumbed down way) that will only benefit the top 10% of students, public schooling should focus on providing solid foundations for further study, and making the average graduate not look like an ignorant idiot.

I do think "logic" would be a good idea though, going through all the logical fallacies people use every day, and teaching people how to tell a good argument from a bad one. There should be a real history of Western Civilisation taught, instead of just a multi-year long MLK wankfest. Grammar should never stop being taught. How often do you see people using "double negatives" for negative statements, and not knowing the difference between "there", "their" and "they're"? Get rid of the "soft subjects" the dumb kids all take (because they are easy), and make sure they at least leave school with literacy in English, and a knowledge of history and georgraphy. Calculus is in fact better left until college so it can be taught in a more rigorous way (from its foundations in analysis) to more gifted students. 85% of kids will never need to use calculus once they leave school, yet most of them still struggle with basic arithemetic and the understanding of basic concepts such as probabilities and ratios. And how about actually teaching math in an intuitive way, instead of just giving kids formulas and not telling them where they come from? I never saw a single "proof" in math class at my school. How about going back to teaching from Euclid's Elements, which builds everything up logically and intuitively from axioms?

A nice essay here on math education. Even though I don't really agree with everything in it.

http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

>>33
What a neat read. Thanks anon!

I think the author is missing an important point though. The boring parts of math, memorization and organization and whatnot are stressed not for math's sake but for their own. It's important to teach organization and how to follow instructions. In fact, that's the main reason math is taught to children in the first place.

He (Lockhart) also doesn't offer up a realistic, workable alternative. I guess that's why it's only a "lament". But for all his whining, students that have a natural talent and passion for math will study it anyway. So I don't really see what his objections are other than "boo hoo, everyone thinks that real math is boring when it's not."

Still, a worthy read.

And he was absolutely right about high school geometry. That shit sucks.

American schools don't teach anything as it is. There are many illiterate high school graduates who can't locate America on a map and have no idea who the people on the currency they use are. This is much bigger problem than you think.

>>35
citation plz

>>36

Are you blind? Just take a stroll at the mall, ride the city bus, or browse MySpace to see how ignorant and sinful America is.

I would make monetary policy required for all high school curricula.

Then I would get assassinated by the illuminati hitmen.

Philosophy, and nothing else.

>>37

Oh, they teach. Americans just don't listen!

maths, how to count, how to live on your own and stuff, then natural sciences, how to do logics.
oh yeah, reading n shit too.

also, how to do computars and technology n shit

i'd make sure people actually learn math, offer applied math and 'regular' versions of math classes

>>39
Philosophy is the most useless shit I've ever took.  Nothing but a bunch of people trying to sound smart and arguing over irrelevant propositions involving ill-defined concepts.

When someone can tell me unambiguously what "good" or "moral" or any of a hundred other such words means, then maybe I'll start to take it seriously.  Until then, you can't even have a serious debate afaic.

>>44
Yes, you miss the point entirely.  Perhaps you should talk to a professional philosopher about it.

>>46
It's me again.  I just re-read your post:

When someone can tell me unambiguously what "good" or any of a hundred other such words means

and got another good laugh out of it.

>>47
Alright genius, how *do* you unambiguously give a yes or no answer to "Is it moral to _____?"  Until you can answer that question, there is no way, for instance, to meaningfully talk about moral relativism, because you haven't even pinned down what morality is yet.

>>48
My point was that it's an unreasonable expectation of a philosopher that they would be able to do that.  Early philosophers felt a lot more comfortable making clear statements that might boil down to "Morality is X", but in fact they created more problems than they solved.  Philosophy is much more about dealing with the _extremely_ difficult issues like "what is morality"--and if they could just arrive on an answer, well, there wouldn't be much to talk about!

What philosophers _can_ do is think & write insightfully about the difficulties of contentious issues, and help us think about, for instance, what the implications would be of actually deciding to define "the good" as "what provides the most happiness for the most people," or "that which we would wish to be a universal maxim."  But don't expect them to "discover" the answer, as we hope that scientists will discover new facts about the physical universe.  "Moral facts" are a whole different thing, ambiguous, frustrating, and elusive, and, yes, perhaps nonexistent.  But very interesting to talk about.

By the way, sorry for being a bit of a dick earlier.  I was just in a dick mood.  I was quite serious, though, about suggesting you talk to a philosopher about your concerns--they might have something really insightful to say about it.  Probably much more than a rank amateur like myself has to say.

/thread hijack

Philosophy is a course people take to make themselves feel like they're more "enlightened" than the masses. Admiring and studying the life of Friedrich Nietzsche won't help you to understand God, morality, or enlightenment.

THE FACT THAT JAPANESE ANIMATION IS SO EASILY IDENTIFIABLE SHOWS HOW SEVERELY LIMITED AND GENERIC IT IS.

>>50
a) Who said anything about Nietzsche?
b) Philosophers don't generally "study the life of" any philosopher, and admiration for a philosopher is at best secondary to study of their ideas.
c) Also, I'd be interested to hear what you think the key to understanding "God, morality, or enlightenment" is.

Grade 9:

English
Spanish
Algebra II
Government
Personal Finance
Physics

Grade 10:

English
Chinese
Pre-Calc
Social Skills
Microeconomics/Macroeconomics
Chemistry
Statistics

Grade 11:

English
German
Calc I and II (Calc BC)
Accounting
Philosophy
Biology
C++

Grade 12:

English
Data Structures
Multivariable Calculus
Linear Algebra
Corporate Finance
Sociology

All I have to say is that we should teach kids about computers and programming using some 6502 based computer. Modern computers are too complex for the average teenager to understand completely (as in what each register does, etc), but an 8-bit CPU is simple enough that any high schooler can learn the ins and outs of it within a year or two. Personally, I believe that you can't write good high-level code until you understand assembler and the nature of your target machine, so program in 6502 ASM as well, none of that BASIC bullshit.

Additionally, by working on such an old machine, you limit the chances of students spending their entire period browsing the internet and playing Quake with each other.

>>54
That's not a bad idea, but you'd sure have trouble motivating most kids.

>>52

The key to it sure doesn't cost money and isn't only avaiable to elitists who applied and were accepted into sinful drug using institutions of "higher learning".

>>57
sinful drug using institutions
Only retards and mice/rats use drugs
http://www.ib4f.com/board/science/sci/topic/273512

Just to troll both of you, would either of you like to define "sinful"?

I would teach the kids to love nature and others around them.

Programming: See EWD1036 (On the cruelty of really teaching computing science)

>>54
I agree with you on that point. Java/BASIC should NOT be the first thing people learn.   If the kids try and fail at Assembly language, then they can pick up Java.  Essentially this weeds out the incompetents at an earlier age before they get into CompSci 101.

More generally, there needs to be more of an "experimentation" mindset in high schools. There has been a large shift in the past couple of decades by parents to shove their kids through as many organized activities as possible.

While structured activities does help their social development and work ethic, by removing unstructured activity, creativity is stifled.


Also, (empirical) science classes are not structured in a "discovery" manner.  High school chemistry classes are structured so that the laws of nature are presented with not enough focus on how they were discovered.  What's even worse is that all chemistry tests are essentially math tests where you have to use the rules of chemistry to solve problems based upon what is observed in the problem.  But in reality, it is our observations that define our models, and I don't think that this is stressed enough.

Finally, I would demote English to an elective.  After middle school, English essentially turns into discussion about Shakespeare, Poetry and Novels, which are of no more importance than any other arts course.  In high school, perhaps one half of the English course could be mandatory: language fundamentals, improving writing style.  The second half would be an elective: literature, technical writing, rhetoric, philosophy, whatever the student wants to do.

>>61

I forgot to mention George Carlin, who asked, "whatever happened to just playing with a fuckin stick in the front yard?"

>>62
I deliberately neglected to bring him up due to an irrational fear of Freudian slips.

Keep dreaming.

For the first two years of HS at least, the last two should have a similar choice of subjects but with more focus and no restrictions:

MANDATORY
4HRS/WK: maths (with less memorisation and exams that actually require thought unlike the ones now)
2HRS home economics (teach them how to cook properly and take care of a home instead of fucking researching ready meals contrary to what the bureaucratic fucks in the government think is appropriate)
4HRS basic science

PICK AT LEAST ONE FROM:
2HRS extra physics
2HRS extra chemistry
2HRS extra biology
2HRS extra maths
2HRS computer science + programming

PICK AT LEAST ONE FROM
3HRS economics
3HRS geography
3HRS "classic" history
3HRS world politics with the study of recent history (last 50~ years)
5HRS languages (no fucking dicking around with shitty textbooks and their contrived exercises, learn from fucking native material early or this is fucking pointless)

FILL REMAINING SLOTS (IF ANY) WITH:
3HRS music (western and non-western music theory, not "DRAW A PICTURE OF THE FEELING YOU FEEL WHEN YOU HEAR THIS PIECE OF MUSIC")
3HRS drawing/painting/pottery classes
3HRS textiles (MAKING CLOTHES NOT SPENDING HALF THE YEAR RESEARCHING AND IMPLEMENTING SEWING THREE SIDES OF CLOTH TOGETHER TO MAKE A BAG OR PILLOWCASE)
3HRS advanced culinary studies
3HRS vocational skills (potentially leading to apprenticeships after graduation for the less academic)
3HRS low-tech engineering

^Was inspired by my current gripes with the GCSE system in the UK.

typo
3HRS computer science + programming

I would utilize the Trivium, and I would initiate the following;
Human interaction
Pro-Active Repetition
Global Integration

Plus, I would teach the kids a few tricks to trip up their parents so learning would become fun again and remain that way. :3

>>2
A patriotism class should be added? How about no. A political science class with some actual depth should be added, for certain. One which requires in-depth research and covers a wide variety of political views, from fascism to democracy to anarchy to oligarchy and as many other ideologies as possible.

Also, physics, with an advanced physics class and an optional quantum class. Chemistry, too, even though I don't enjoy it as much. I agree with the person who said logic, and the person who said start teaching Algebra earlier.

And fucking language skills and the arts. They're beneficial on their own AND they help the mind to develop new ways of looking at the same things, which can be really useful in problem-solving of any kind.

>>70
You really think HS kids know the mathematics needed for quantum physics? Or if it's appropriate for them to be expected to know it at that level? (no)

Dumbed down mathematics is the real bane of school physics.

>>4,17,20-25,31,33,54,59,61,62
Good stuff.

Shop. Many schools have eliminated shop programs... and many people don/t know how to build anything, anymore.