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

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.