Righto : perusing FML and similar I often see Americans talking about their grade point average ( or something like that) could I trouble someone to explain what this actually means and a brie overview of the ins and outs of how grades etc work over the pond. Ta in advance.
This is how I understand our GPA system. At the end of a Quarter, Semester, etc... you get a grade for your class. A (Fantastic), B (above average), C (average), D (below average), F (failure). You then receive a matching Grade Point for the score, A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0. The points are then added together and averaged (thus giving you a Grade Point Average).
If I remember correctly the GPA is averaged again at the end of the year and it follows you (like a homeless dog) from year to year. Once you go to college/university, you get a "reset".
Example: In my area you generally have 7 classes (in high school at least) so let's say little Timmah gets the following on his report card A, A, B, B, B, C, & D. His GPA would be 2.86.
If you get an F in the class you either have to repeat it, or take another class later that satisfies the class requirement. If it is an advanced or elective class I don't think you would have to retake it, but it will still affect your GPA.
If you leave education after high school, do you get certificates/similar for what you've attained so far then ? And how does this system translate into what final level of degree you get ?
After graduating highschool you'll have a diploma and a transcript. The transcript has the complete history of your education.
Sometimes in college you can "test-out" of certain classes by either taking a competancy test or showing that you took similar/greater level of a class before. It doesn't really affect the final "level" of your degree, but it may help shorten the time that it takes. Being able to join a certain college/university in the States is generally based on GPA, ACT/SAT, extra-curricular activities, racial profile, and/or good old cash.
For example, the university that I am preparing to graduate from basically required an 18 on the ACT, a heart-beat, and the cash (or play-money that is a Federal Loan) to pay for it. As you would expect the "better" the Temple of Education, the greater the entry requirements.
A high school diploma is a diploma awarded for the completion of high school. In the United States and Canada, it is considered the minimum education required for government jobs and higher education. An equivalent is the GED.
SAT
The SAT Reasoning Test (formerly Scholastic Aptitude Test and Scholastic Assessment Test) is a standardized test for college admissions in the United States.
GED (also referred to as a second chance diploma, or a "Good Enough Diploma")
General Educational Development (or GED) tests are a group of five subject tests which, when passed, certify that the taker has American or Canadian high school-level academic skills. To pass the GED Tests and earn a GED credential, test takers must score higher than 60 percent of graduating high school seniors nationwide. Some jurisdictions require that students pass additional tests such as an English proficiency exam or civics test. Only individuals who have not earned a high school diploma may take the GED tests.
Beyond high school or equivalent
In the United States, most standard academic programs are based on the four-year bachelor's degree (most often Bachelor of Arts, B.A., or Bachelor of Science, B.S.), a one- or two-year master's degree (most often Master of Arts, M.A., or Master of Science, M.S.; either of these programs might be as much as three years in length) and a further one or two years of coursework and research, culminating in "comprehensive" examinations in one or more fields, plus perhaps some teaching experience, and then the writing of a dissertation for the doctorate (most often doctor of philosophy, Ph.D. or other types such as Ed.D., Psy.D., Th.D.) for a total of ten or more years from starting the bachelor's degree (which is usually begun around age 18) to the awarding of the doctorate. This timetable is only approximate, however, as students in accelerated programs can sometimes earn a bachelor's degree in three years or, on the other hand, a particular dissertation project might take four or more years to complete. In addition, a graduate may wait an indeterminate time between degrees before candidacy in the next level, or even an additional degree at a level already completed. Therefore, there is no time-limit on the accumulation of academic degrees.
reds8n wrote:ACT/SAT being some form of test right ?
ah, the ACT, boy was that an unpleasant 6 hours or so of filling out a multiple choice test in a room that smelled really terrible
Yeah, glad I didnt have to do that. Thank God I dropped out. Getting my GED in 10th grade and goofing off for 4 years = priceless
moving on to college without a scholorship = fething expensive. getting a job without a diploma = hard. Getting stoned all day while my piers did junior and senior year = totally worth it.
Yo, I have a question for you Europeans. Is your education system obsessed with the well-rounded student bs? Like most colleges here look for "well-rounded" students, and consider your grades, ACT/SAT scores, social involvement, extracurricular and athletics when deciding to admit you.
I remember once in high school this German chick came for a visit and was asked to speak. She said American teenagers were stupid and gossiped in the phone all the time while her counterparts were simply brilliant. When we could ask questions I told her to STFU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Norwulf wrote:
greenskin lynn wrote:
reds8n wrote:ACT/SAT being some form of test right ?
ah, the ACT, boy was that an unpleasant 6 hours or so of filling out a multiple choice test in a room that smelled really terrible
When you are 45 and still flipping burgers you'll come to realize you wasted your youth. you are in your 20s and can't even spell peer correctly.
Yeah, glad I didnt have to do that. Thank God I dropped out. Getting my GED in 10th grade and goofing off for 4 years = priceless
moving on to college without a scholorship = fething expensive. getting a job without a diploma = hard. Getting stoned all day while my piers did junior and senior year = totally worth it.
Afrikan Blonde wrote: I remember once in high school this German chick came for a visit and was asked to speak. She said American teenagers were stupid and gossiped in the phone all the time while her counterparts were simply brilliant. When we could ask questions I told her to STFU.
That's not a question.
Anyway, back to the topic; Europeans don't have a single unified education system. Every country has a slightly different system and I expect a lot of countries also have a parallel private system.
I don't know if I would consider it "well-rounded BS" but I think it is important for students to interests and experience outside the core curriculum.
One criticism of the current UK curriculum is that it is too focussed on passing tests on specific topics, so schools ignore off-curriculum stuff like music and art so they concentrate on the test subjects.
Norwulf wrote: Getting my GED in 10th grade and goofing off for 4 years = priceless
Getting stoned all day while my piers did junior and senior year = totally worth it.
A lesson here, stay away from the hard one syllable words. They don't do a thing for your position that getting stoned instead of learning is a good thing when you don't know how to spell them.
I dropped out of High School when I realized that the system isn't set up to award learning, but rather indoctrination. I continuously received F's on my report cards because I refused to do homework, even though I consistently scored A's and B's on my tests.
When my counselor asked me why I refused to do my homework, I told her I didn't have to. "Everybody has to do homework." "Why?" "So you can learn the material." "But I know the material." "No you don't, you're failing." "Then why am I required to take tests?" "So we can determine if you're learning the material." "But I pass my tests, obviously I know the material, why should I do homework?" "Everybody has to do homework." "I'm dropping out now, please start the paperwork." "......"
At every level (high school, undergraduate, and graduate) a student has a new GPA and transcript, and usually has to take a new standardized test to get into the next level. So, since I've graduated law school, almost nobody cares about my undergrad GPA. When I was applying to law schools, they were very interested in my undergrad GPA (As GPA and LSAT score are about 90-95% of the factors in getting in).
The thing with GPA is that different schools, and empoyers for that matter, view it's important differently. I slacked off hard core in undergrad, and left with about a 2.2, which is a low C average and about as poor as you can get and still graduate. Some law schools wouldn't look at me, others liked my LSAT enough to offer me scholarship money. Cleveland State rolled the dice with me and I did pretty well.
OTOH, if you're applying with the Federal Government, you almost need a 3.0 to get in the door. They don't care where it's from or what you took, but they like 3.0's.
I know that certain businesses (even fast food) will not hire you if you only have a GED or nothing at all. My mom was a manager at the local Taco Bell for 2 years and every application she got where it listed the applicant as having a GED or having dropped out and not graduated she threw away, then never called those people. Her reason: If the applicant was too lazy to finish HS or not motivated enough what is going to make them motivated enough to be at work on time when they are supposed to be?
That was 14 years ago she worked there. I know even today where I live that SOME fast food places won't take drop outs.
High School is a joke today. It's less about learning and more about just having a reason to hang out with friends and not bothering to learn. Perhaps that explains why the dropout rate is so high (like Detroit, MI where 1 in 4 students drop out of HS).
As someone replied to a previous poster...yeah, being in your 20's and not knowing how to spell "peer" properly because you dropped out of HS just to sit around, get high and leech off your parents: PRICELESS!! Hehe.
Fateweaver wrote:It's less about learning and more about just having a reason to hang out with friends and not bothering to learn
That is really more up to the parents and student, as always. A kid who wants to learn and has education emphasized at home will learn something. Parents who give it lip service and let the kid run around all the time instead of enforcing homework and such, may have some more problems. It isn't just the schools, which often try but have to compete with the internet and texting and booze and bewbies and all sorts of new and exciting things.
While I don't believe education should be just about becoming employable, there's no doubt that it will affect your employment prospects.
As a manager and recruiter myself, one of the problems I face each year is how to whittle down the 2-3 dozen applicants per place to the 4-5 I actually have time to interview.
Three easy ways to do this are:
1. Did the applicant send the required materials (e.g. a portfolio?)
2. Can he write English properly? What's his covering letter like?
3. What are his grades looking like?
One of the points about being a manager is to cover your back in case something goes wrong. An easy way to do this is to select people with higher grades. If anything did go badly wrong, at least you don't have to tell your boss you deliberately ignore a higher qualified candidate in favour of a lower qualified one.
Obviously all jobs don't require an academic degree. However the number of jobs that don't require literacy and numeracy is shrinking all the time. Even if you are a ditch digger, these days you probably actually have to operate a back hoe which needs you to fill in a bunch of health and safety and maintenance forms every week.
Polonius wrote:
The thing with GPA is that different schools, and empoyers for that matter, view it's important differently. I slacked off hard core in undergrad, and left with about a 2.2, which is a low C average and about as poor as you can get and still graduate. Some law schools wouldn't look at me, others liked my LSAT enough to offer me scholarship money. Cleveland State rolled the dice with me and I did pretty well.
You'll be hearing from my IP lawyers for that violation of the copyright to my life story.
Polonius wrote:
OTOH, if you're applying with the Federal Government, you almost need a 3.0 to get in the door. They don't care where it's from or what you took, but they like 3.0's.
No kidding. I'm just a fuzz under a 3.0 and you'd think I had the plague from the reaction I've received from State/CIA/NSA/et al.
I have to say that my disappointment with the numerous schools I have attended, fueled by my need to learn skills that are useful, has left me with a general disdain for modern education techniques. If Wrex could have apprenticed as a carpenter, he would be building his own houses from real-deal cut with steel scratch right now; but the gods of modern opportunity took no notice, and I was "forced" to finish whatever moronic lesson my teachers had cobbled together the night before. I understand that some students (well, maybe most students) need a lot of structure, but this still does not make up for the almost scam-like nuances most schools tote with little regard to what someone is trying to accomplish.
Point A to point B education... which is basically a waste of most peoples time. Quiz your parents on those "necessary" classes they took in high school and college, but use our tests; watch in horror as 9/10 fails the test epically. Not a new sight, nor a very astonishing one to me; this hardly stops the wheels from turning though.
Perhaps Wrex is crazy for focusing on abilities that are most useful in an economic meltdown; the lack of work, and the utter "incompetence" I find throughout the corporatist world, leaves me smiling for lack of a better word. Maybe Wrex is old school or whatever, but I see not good, but terrible things coming this way. So, at one point or another building a hut in the woods, preferably with a team and nearby a hospital (or transportation to), will lead to an Ewok village or some nonsense like that. All of Dakka is welcome for the opening party (if the zombies don't eat you first), just don't litter.... litter-bugs are executed without trial.
Man, these are such beautiful carpentry tools. Screw beauty though, money makes the world go round eh? that with a hot poker.
Yet another lost art... really a sad thing to see. Now it is little more than a past time for aspiring artists.... uugh if I may say so myself... just uugh.
Long gone are the days where you can feel the fruits of your labor. It eats your soul, and you love it for that.
Onto the age of getting that dollar by hell or high water, not for need of it, but for lack of it; whatever you choose to lack that is... besides... you know... food, water, and a roof.
Lordhat wrote:I dropped out of High School when I realized that the system isn't set up to award learning, but rather indoctrination. I continuously received F's on my report cards because I refused to do homework, even though I consistently scored A's and B's on my tests.
When my counselor asked me why I refused to do my homework, I told her I didn't have to. "Everybody has to do homework." "Why?" "So you can learn the material." "But I know the material." "No you don't, you're failing." "Then why am I required to take tests?" "So we can determine if you're learning the material." "But I pass my tests, obviously I know the material, why should I do homework?" "Everybody has to do homework." "I'm dropping out now, please start the paperwork." "......"
Generalised testing is FUN, you get to sit in a cold room and wrack your brain for information. BS skills are a must for any generalized test. I had no idea what the differences between renaissance and reformation art besides who funded each and what the art topics were. I managed to get a 4 on the exam after making two concepts a full page paper.
Oh, with testing out of classes. Some schools offer AP classes which offer college credits and if you get a 3 or higher you get college credits for the class. For example: I don't need to take any english, history, or basic math thanks to college credits.
halonachos wrote:Generalised testing is FUN, you get to sit in a cold room and wrack your brain for information. BS skills are a must for any generalized test. I had no idea what the differences between renaissance and reformation art besides who funded each and what the art topics were. I managed to get a 4 on the exam after making two concepts a full page paper.
Wussy, back in my day we had to take the tests by torchligh while we fought off the zombie dinosaurs and sabre toothed jackalopes. Of course back then the tests were simpler.
"Noog has two rocks and a stick. How many rocks would it take to bash Grog's brain in and steal his woman? Use examples."
And of course the short answer portion wasn't too bad. "What is the history of the world? Be specific."
Frazzled wrote:Wussy, back in my day we had to take the tests by torchligh while we fought off the zombie dinosaurs and sabre toothed jackalopes. Of course back then the tests were simpler.
"Noog has two rocks and a stick. How many rocks would it take to bash Grog's brain in and steal his woman? Use examples."
And of course the short answer portion wasn't too bad. "What is the history of the world? Be specific."
Pft, you flashy youngsters and your language. Back in my day you were lucky enough just to have two rocks and a stick, let alone be able to write about them!
I returned to education last year, after a 12-year, ahem, 'break' and let me tell you - life fething sucks if you don't have a formal education! It just limits your possibilities and anyone who says otherwise is just kidding themselves. Yeah, it was fun to go touring around the country with my band - we came close to getting a record deal on several occasions - but earning £5 an hour in random crappy jobs for 9 years was NOT fun.
Long story short - I'm now studying for a degree in music. It's difficult but I love it.
It's never too late to stop being a loser.
Granny always said, "Purty teef and book learnin will only git yis so far in life." You Europeans should realize that University in the United States is remarkably similar to secondary school for you. American university students do homework much the same way as their younger peers in elementary (primary) school. It's very strange. For the Americans you should realize that in Europe you typically have one two-hour exam at the end of the semester to determine your entire grade for the course. It's a wonderous thing.
olympia wrote: For the Americans you should realize that in Europe you typically have one two-hour exam at the end of the semester to determine your entire grade for the course. It's a wonderous thing.
Bugger that. I had that in law school. Head and shoulder sthe most stupid way to grade someone in the history of grading.
Frazz, for graduate-level classes, I'm not so sure. The final exam is kind of a "so did you get it or not" as opposed to making you jump through hoops all semester.
Of course, the fairly significant catch here is whether the exam is truly representative of the coursework. So I'll concede that point ahead of time.
gorgon wrote:Frazz, for graduate-level classes, I'm not so sure. The final exam is kind of a "so did you get it or not" as opposed to making you jump through hoops all semester.
Of course, the fairly significant catch here is whether the exam is truly representative of the coursework. So I'll concede that point ahead of time.
Or how are you feeling that day
Or how is the prof feeling when he looks at your paper
Our tests were sometime just two or three essay questions. Screw one and you're ed.
olympia wrote: For the Americans you should realize that in Europe you typically have one two-hour exam at the end of the semester to determine your entire grade for the course. It's a wonderous thing.
If you go to a private university/college in America this is usually how it works as well; assuming you have exams. Often times your grade is based on 1 or 2 papers; usually a research paper, or a research paper and proposal. If the teachers are nice they'll derive 10-25% of the from reflection essays or informational tests, but that's pretty rare.
The exceptions are the hard sciences, which tend to be pretty uniform: 80% of your grade tied up in mid-terms/finals, and the remaining 20% based on sectional tests.
Hard science classes typically had a lot of hard science type questions and absolutes with mutliple tests etc. whereas the softy stuff tended more towards touchy feely essay and lame projects. My grad stuff was typically annoying project/plan and a couple of tests. Law school courses were usually one test or a a research item depending on what the specific course was. I did see one student get kicked out of the class second year because they weren't prepared to discuss a case, but no one voluntarily picked that male genitalia of a human being to start with.
Frazzled wrote: whereas the softy stuff tended more towards touchy feely essay and lame projects.
I imagine that the softer subjects have changed a lot since you were in school. Many of them trade so heavily in statistics and economics that they're often just applied version of those departments The exception is usually Gender Studies, which is basically what philosophy was in your day. Philosophy these days is so heavily reliant on formal logic that its basically math with different symbols, and a greater emphasis on theory.
Frazzled wrote:
I did see one student get kicked out of the class second year because they weren't prepared to discuss a case, but no one voluntarily picked that male genitalia of a human being to start with.
Frazzled wrote: whereas the softy stuff tended more towards touchy feely essay and lame projects.
I imagine that the softer subjects have changed a lot since you were in school. Many of them trade so heavily in statistics and economics that they're often just applied version of those departments The exception is usually Gender Studies, which is basically what philosophy was in your day. Philosophy these days is so heavily reliant on formal logic that its basically math with different symbols, and a greater emphasis on theory.
Two parts, you have the softer courses that are not math based (management for example) then you had the "soft" courses-literature or other such. If you used numbers in the college of liberal you get blank stares, just as if you used touchy feely words in the school of accounting.
I wouldn't know anything about gender studies courses. I only took one thing like that, and sobriety was not an option at that point.
Frazzled wrote: I did see one student get kicked out of the class second year because they weren't prepared to discuss a case, but no one voluntarily picked that male genitalia of a human being to start with.
I'm bummed I never got to see anybody thrown out of class in law school. I only was caught unprepared once, and I just copped to it. By that point the prof just moved on.
Of course, by third year nobody was ever prepared.
olympia wrote: For the Americans you should realize that in Europe you typically have one two-hour exam at the end of the semester to determine your entire grade for the course. It's a wonderous thing.
Yeah, if you balls up the final exam you have effectively wasted the last 3 to 4 years of your life. ....makes it interesting though. I still think back to my first final exam.. Monday Morning, 9:00 "Can God commit suicide ?" Discuss."
...good times.
Most of the courses these days have some element of coursework/continual assessment as part of the deal. You can appeal and can, sometimes, wangle a resit but that's quite unusual. There's an ongoing "urban myth" type rumour that goes around every year at exam time about you being given an auto pass if housemate commits suicide/family member dies/ X/Y/unlikely scenario 4 and so on.
Where I work we had a spate a couple of years back of people getting mates to phone in bomb threats to the exam venues after a rumour went round that you got an auto pass in such harrowing circumstances.... amazingly enough , this was in fact complete BS.
Over here we have these kind of infamous exam stories that go round : Japanese student committing suicide in an exam by sticking a pencil in each nostril and pushing them into his brain by slamming his head on the table and many variations on the "The question says "Is this a question ?" and the cool student either just writes "yes" or "is this an answer ?" and scores a first.... hmm.. don't think so.
We did genuinely have a case a good few years back which led to a change in the official polices and rules of the university. A guy handed in his very long and dry and dull PHD thesis, and about 90% of the way through it declared that he had in fact plagiarised X % of the work and demanded to be given a mark of zero. They called him and then he showed them the "rules" for said course where plagiarism was specifically defined as attempting to pass off someones else's work as your own... which of course he hadn't done by admitting it. He threatened to sue either way so, mainly to get rid of him, they gave him the mark he wanted and rewrote the rules for the next year.
My general theory behind school, and job opportunity is this.
The more adults/immigrants found in minimum wage jobs, the less job opportunity there is in jobs that require degrees. You have to take into account the fact that if teenagers are competing with adults over jobs that are basically considered to be "jobs for teens", there is going to be a massive influx of experienced professionals competing with the total noobs. So you get out of college with massive debt, are forced to pay off some of that debt with credit, which in turn only makes your debt worse. After trying to manage your finances, you have to go out and compete in a terrible job market, only to find that you actually need to eat food and have a roof in that time.
Well... it is not to say that most businesses do not want the most obedient workers possible, but the problem is that the inexperienced college kids cant hold a light to the imported and massively experienced college degrees. Take your pick, do you want A.) College kid with massive debt and a penchant for alcoholism?... or B.) College immigrant with absolutely no goals besides getting that job, keeping that job, and working for much cheaper?
Anyway though... There is work out there, of that I have no doubt. But you are going to be competing in one of the most competitive overall job markets the world has ever seen. When you cannot find work in that market, you inevitably start to compete for the minimum wage jobs, and yet again, you are competing against people that are more obedient, as well as not being "overqualified".
Which way to India? I am pretty sure that there is work there .
Polonius wrote:I'm bummed I never got to see anybody thrown out of class in law school. I only was caught unprepared once, and I just copped to it. By that point the prof just moved on.
Of course, by third year nobody was ever prepared.
2nd year required course. The prof wa a dillweed you only took if the good prof was filled up. You know how it is.
4. Read around the subject a bit, especially the stuff the professor adds as optional to the core text. Markers love it when you add in some stuff that wasn't core to the course.
5. Do the homework.
6. Do a proper job on the mid-term exam or essay. It can be 10-15% of the whole course, and some courses give you a pass on 35% of total marks. Get 80% on your essay and you only need scrape together another 30 points out of 100 in the final.
7. Go to the exam preparation extra lectures. That's when they give you a strong hint as to what will be in the paper.
8. Review past papers and see how the selection of questions breaks down with regard to the logical sections of the module.
9. Revise, and review exam technique.
10. Read the rubric. Don't panic.
In other words it is a lot of good old-fashioned hard work.
If you do the work, you are guaranteed to pass unless you are very stupid. And you wouldn't have been accepted into the university if you were very stupid.
I got kicked out of one class in law school. Boy was I pissed. The prof wanted me to recite a case that was cited in the notes. I can see reciting a case in the casebook, but not one in the darn notes where the student actually have to look it up and read the entire case.
Most of my other classes the prof just moves on or he/she will discuss the case.
I didn't learn how to file a lawsuit till third year.
Polonius wrote:I'm bummed I never got to see anybody thrown out of class in law school. I only was caught unprepared once, and I just copped to it. By that point the prof just moved on.
Of course, by third year nobody was ever prepared.
in Europe you typically have one two-hour exam at the end of the semester to determine your entire grade for the course.
Hmm. No.
Only my first year doesn't count towards my overall mark, and the exams only make up about 20% (each) of my overall mark for each year. The rest is made up of a portfolio of compositions, arrangements and performance marks. They then take an average. Some pathways on my course don't even involve a final exam.
I got kicked out of one class in law school. Boy was I pissed. The prof wanted me to recite a case that was cited in the notes. I can see reciting a case in the casebook, but not one in the darn notes where the student actually have to look it up and read the entire case.
Polonius wrote:I'm bummed I never got to see anybody thrown out of class in law school. I only was caught unprepared once, and I just copped to it. By that point the prof just moved on.
Of course, by third year nobody was ever prepared.
2nd year required course. The prof wa a dillweed you only took if the good prof was filled up. You know how it is.
Do I ever. There is nothing worse than the "semi core" classes you take later in law school. I took estates and trusts my third year, and I was pretty checked out, and the prof wanted to run it like a first year course.
Third year was weird, watching super A-type people who used to sweat every point and page of required reading blow off assignments and readings. Hell, I had a class where I was supposed to do this big notebook by the end, and I told the prof I wasn't going to do it and I'll just take an F, because I wanted to start prep for the bar. He had me bring what I had, and I ended with a C, but I just didnt' care about my grades anymore.
Overall, I'm not impressed with american puclic education. Most of my highschool/middle school experiance was hearing a bunch of teacher's opinions and propaganda. I learned alot more from my mom's homeschooling than public school. FFS they never mentioned WW2 or WW1 at the schools I went to. They told us the American civil war was about slavery and only slavery. They barely glossed over the huge tariffs the north had on the south, and didn't mention that some confederates believed in the right to secede or didn't want to fight their neighbors. By the time my peers were in their senior year, I was attending my local community college. IMO schools here are crap, (maybe it's just washington state).
When I was in 4th grade through 6th grade, I had a friend from Belgium, who would come stay in the states while his dad did translation related work. He was quad-lingual at age 10, Latin was a required course for him. He knew basic algebra and trig. Belgium seems to do a far better job at teaching their kids. Most of the kids I went to high scchool with could hardly handle a hardy boys novel.
Ok, now the spelling police can critique my post for errors. BTW I have never had to flip burgers in my life, I was in charge of washing dishes. lol
Norwulf wrote:Overall, I'm not impressed with american puclic education. Most of my highschool/middle school experiance was hearing a bunch of teacher's opinions and propaganda. I learned alot more from my mom's homeschooling than public school. FFS they never mentioned WW2 or WW1 at the schools I went to. They told us the American civil war was about slavery and only slavery. They barely glossed over the huge tariffs the north had on the south, and didn't mention that some confederates believed in the right to secede or didn't want to fight their neighbors.
l
I'm curious as to your latter schooling and self directed learning if the number one complaint you had about the public school was a failure to rehash old "lost cause" revisionist history. No, the Civil War was not solely about slavery, but it's naive to see it as anything other than the major factor.
I'm not really trying to call you out, but it sounds like it's possible you swapped one set of propaganda for another.
As for me, I couldn't tell you what we learned in any given history class. I spent the classes reading ahead, and I read pretty broadly as a kid on all manner of subjects.
Basically the sum of what they told us about the civil war in my 8th grade history class was: "the confederates were evil slave driving monsters. The civil war was about freeing slaves." When I got older and started looking into the subject a little more I was really disappointed in what I was told in school. It was much more complicated than what they had taught me, I realized there was alot more going on.
I was also really disappointed that they never went in depth about WW2, because it was an ugly subject. During my entire public school career WW1 was never mentioned. I was curious about the subjects and had to go learn about it myself at the library. It could just be the way my particular state or school district does things, but I felt cheated, when my friend Sten (Belgiun kid) got a more complete education. I have to admit he was much smarter than me.
Middle and high school history does tend to clean up the darker bits of history, but it's not like what you were taught was wrong, per se, just incomplete.
Lincoln was elected as an abolitionist, which was the triggering event that lead to secession. It's more complicated, but I'd agree that the confederates were wrong to support chattel slavery, and calling it evil might be inflammatory, but by today's standard I think it qualifies. And yeah, the war was about freeing slaves. Maybe it became that a little later, but it was a result of the war, probably the largest just ahead of the greatly increased power of the federal government and the lessening of regionalism in the North.
I'm not saying your school wasn't poorly run or anything, but knowing that the civil war was fought over slavery would still place you fairly high on the scale of knowledge of american history.
A:The Civil War was about Slavery.
B: No! It was about State Rights!
A: What State right was under threat?
B: Slavery but it wasn't about that, it was about States Rights!
A: What Sate Rights?
Well, it's more complicated than slavery to be sure. The South saw the economic and political center of the nation shifting north, there were some grievances on all sides, but at the end the South fought over slavery.
I've never been able to figure out how the south, how dominated politics until the civil war, had anything to complain about. Thanks to the various compromises, the South almost always held the presidency, most supreme court seats, and the leadership of the Congress.
Lol. I was mainly posting that to make sure nobody thought I was making a simple claim that the South fought over slavery.
Orkeosaurus wrote:All the more reason to resent losing influence, I suppose.
Well, the source of my confusion is a claim that comes up from Lost Cause types, that the South had grievances beyond slavery that were the real cause of the war.
I'm not unsympathetic, given how morals have shifted in 150 years the idea of chattel slavery has become almost unthinkable, and so those interested in Southern history and heritage are forced with either facing that, or trying to find ways to justify the war and the sacrifice of their forefathers that don't involve slavery.
It's generally not meant with malice, but it does tend to ignore the reality of the situation. I'm as Yankee as they come, and I don't think the average Confederate soldier was a bad guy. I'm not even sure the slave holders were that morally accountable. It was a different time, and a different ethic existed. It was wrong, and it's a good thing to free the slaves, but I don't demonize the South as a whole simply because of that. It was later, during the Nadir of Jim Crow, that things got pretty demonic.
One thing that should be made clear is that it's not like the North was horribly interested in dealing with the freed slaves afterwards. The North at the time was still horribly racist.
What are you kidding me? The north loved everyone all day long!!! Seriously though man... geez...
Slap me silly and call me naive... but humankind has an awful long way to go on the whole hate and divide thing... just a bit further... just... ummm... well, 10k miles further...
On a lighter note... we do have candy corn. Placebo FTW, no harm no foul... umm, and play plenty of video games to make your brain big and strong. And eat that damn candy corn, there is no way in hell I am going to eat candied-earwax.
Polonius wrote:Well, it's more complicated than slavery to be sure. The South saw the economic and political center of the nation shifting north, there were some grievances on all sides, but at the end the South fought over slavery.
The Declaration of Independence written by the Southern states is almost word for word the original Declaration, but with an added part about the absolute right of white men to own negroes.
While the North might have fought the war primarily to maintain the Union and not to free the slaves, the South started the whole thing because they were afraid they were going to lose their right to own slaves.
Candy Corns are like Orks, once they get a foothold they're impossible to remove. Any candy corn that is not eaten reproduces via spores and will continue to attack every halloween, so they're like necrons too. To sum it up, candy corn is like a race of Ork Necrons that never die and reproduce through spores and attack the world in timed intervals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Norwulf wrote:Overall, I'm not impressed with american puclic education. Most of my highschool/middle school experiance was hearing a bunch of teacher's opinions and propaganda. I learned alot more from my mom's homeschooling than public school. FFS they never mentioned WW2 or WW1 at the schools I went to. They told us the American civil war was about slavery and only slavery. They barely glossed over the huge tariffs the north had on the south, and didn't mention that some confederates believed in the right to secede or didn't want to fight their neighbors. By the time my peers were in their senior year, I was attending my local community college. IMO schools here are crap, (maybe it's just washington state).
It probably is just Washington, which has a pathetic 33rd place(compared to my state which is 6th). In my schools we were taught that the north placed tarrifs on the south, the issue of slavery that was just swept under the rug since the signing of the constitution, and the fact that most southerners were too poor to own slaves, and were fighting for the chance to own slaves.
We also learned about WW1 and WW2 and how the french and brits helped to start the second world war. We also learned who the real first president was.
Hmmm - if you want to go down that route, you have to have an aggressor to appease in the first place. Plus, France and Britain had guarenteed the independence of Poland, giving us Cassus Belli once they were invaded. The annexation of Austria would've been seen as a relatively minor event, comparitively. But, to use the schoolyard response: 'THEY STARTED IT!'
You can't blame Britain, dude...
I'm not saying you can. Appeasement is generally little more than a right-wing excuse for overly aggressive foreign policy (if they aren't dead, then they're being appeased!), but it has a LOT of traction on this side of the pond; especially because of the whole 'Axis of Evil' thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I thought he was talking about the Treaty of Versailles or something.
I would have thought that as well, but Mr. Nachos has called himself a jingoist in the past, so I thought otherwise.
how the french and brits helped to start the second world war.
How? By invading Poland? Oh, hang on a minute... that was someone else.
It was probaly more the treaty of Versailles and the crippling effect it had on Germany. Which was certainly a factor in helping Hitler come to power.
I think whenever someone says 'I thought this was simple but then I found out it was quite complicated' they're probably on to something. But when someone says 'I was taught one thing but then found out it was this other thing' they've generally just replaced one simplistic view with another.
Albatross wrote:Surely the post-war partition of Nazi Germany had a worse overall effect than the treaty of Versailles? No 'Hitler' figure arose from that.
Um, how could they? Its not like hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks, and aircraft from the guys who kicked the out of the Germans were sitting right on top of them or anything for 50 years...
that with a hot poker.
.
