Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wrexasaur wrote:I agree with K-10 systems with the option to continue for 2 years in order to prepare for college, and further your education in general. Standard K-12 could be considered wasteful in some situations.

As to the question about tax payers paying for it, I strongly support what money would be spent on that (plus more obviously) being moved into alternative 'end of high school' institutions. There is option in some areas to test out early, and many already do so. Having an option that supports those interested in something besides going to college seems like a great idea. The other point is what those kids would be doing if they weren't in school, assuming they are attending classes in the first place.

I would guess that kicking students out at 16 would promote extra crime to some degree. On the other hand, providing another option than 11-12 standard, could promote the opposite effect, and you could end up with more productive citizenry in general. I don't assume it would be true, it seems possible though.

Maybe kicking out is too strong an ending to the problem. My primary problem with is that such students are extremely disruptive in the class room. My teachers spent more than half their time trying to keep things orderly rather than teaching. Specialized programs would be a better solution but I'm not an expert so I don't know. All I know is that I see a problem based on personal experience. Maybe I'm a little biased (Probably).

It is slightly surprising that the school allows them to get away with that. Personally, I feel that having online education combined with class tests/support would serve to both filter out people that are more interested in drinking with their buddies, as well as give students that are serious a flexible schedule. Do I want to drive 20-30 minutes to school because the public transit system takes me two hours? Umm... no. That isn't to say that having small to medium lectures can't be a good thing, just that besides the cost to implement online education on a large scale, it is generally an obvious fix to a lot of problems. At least IMO.

There was one kid I know who failed out of school. Never attended classes, never turned in any assignments. He made the argument he was "depressed" (He wasn't) and ended up getting an extra year for a mental disability . When he failed out with that he went to online courses. He didn't do those either . He drank Dr. Pepper 24/7 and did I don't know know what but in the dorms he liked to be an annoying .

Part of it is probably money. Professors don't end up doing much with students who pay full tuition, we students whose parents pay full tuition, and who only come to enough classes to get that D they need to pass. You get full payments for a full education for someone who isn't getting it. Granted my school kicks you out if you make consistent f's, but then most schools probably do. I just don't understand why anyone would spend $20,000 and only put in enough effort to make a D, and shrug when you fail to make that D and get F's.

Now what did you learn at school between the ages of 11-13? Seriously, I wouldn't actually know. Kids these days are probably just watching the Jonas Brothers and Twilight or some crap. I didn't have any trouble with the maths in tenth grade so it can't have been anything important.

The same thing over and over. Grades 1-4 were pretty much the exact same material covered for 4 f'thing years. Then we go to fifth grade but it's just the same thing. We learn some new stuff finally and then we go over that again for the next five or so years. I didn't actually see new material until I got to eighth grade, and even then, until tenth grade I knew more about history than most of my history teachers, which was sad back then when I knew a lot less than I do now.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Now what did you learn at school between the ages of 11-13? Seriously, I wouldn't actually know. Kids these days are probably just watching the Jonas Brothers and Twilight or some crap. I didn't have any trouble with the maths in tenth grade so it can't have been anything important.

Most of the stuff in basic GCSE's , but that was due to the CE and CASE exams.
Other schools that don't do CE and don't offer CASE, the time spent between 11 and 13 is pretty much wasted, that is unless your REALLY into languarges and are good enough to get into a fast track course (They do they're GCSE in the chosen languarge between years 7-8 (6th to 8th grade I think)) But as it has been mentioned, the UK school system is not amazing.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Oh yeah... I did that too.

Was it during one of those years you learn to write the number '6' from the top? Because I've always done it from the middle.

As a young one I actually was a part of the gifted and talented program . Pretty sweet deal since you get away from the more monotonous busy work while going on field trips like the problem solving obstacle course at Lackland Air Force base.

Regular truancy seems like the hard way to learn lessons but it is a way nonetheless. Not to mention in the USA you can get your parents into some legal trouble by regularly failing to show up to class but this is assuming one cares for such.

I suffered from terrible boredom at school during primary school (grades K to 6), and my requests for extra stimulation were met with boring little quizzes and 'go read a book'. So I generally got in trouble. Dux in Mathematics and English for my primary, though.

If there was anything I was slow to figure out, it was that you can just walk away from school. I don't really recommend it these days... the bureaucracy seems to have kicked up a bit. I don't think I'd have gotten away with it these days, and rode the edge pretty hard as it was.

At least you had a program for bored kids available... Australia has them, apparently, but I never saw anything to do with them.

dogma wrote:

Who names their daughter after the Greek goddess of sexuality?

When your daughter looks like this or you have a good sense of humor.

No-one wants to sit next to her.

Kilkrazy wrote:No-one wants to sit next to her.

I will.

Wrexasaur wrote:I agree with K-10 systems with the option to continue for 2 years in order to prepare for college, and further your education in general. Standard K-12 could be considered wasteful in some situations.

Absolutely. I hate this idea that keeping people in school for an extra two years when they're not interested in anything academic or white collar is somehow good for them, or good for the rest of us. Let them get out and then help them get into a trade by taking the resources that would have been used babysitting them for two more years and put that into apprenticeships instead. Encourage people into trades.

If they decide down the track they'd really like to complete highschool, maybe to go on to college, then adult learning should be supported, but the idea of making or even encouraging kids that don't care to sit there for another two years is really wrongheaded, in my opinion.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Is telling me what I said supposed to be a new point?

That's not what you said. What you said is that the sexuality of today is not the sexuality of ancient Greece. This is true, but not terribly relevant to my initial comment.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
The fact that she was born of Uranus' genitals is one thing, that fact that you were born of your mother's is another.

I really don't see the problem. The negative association of a few people never stopped a hundred thousand Mexicans calling their baby boy Jesus.

/offtopic

Nor did it stop anyone from commenting on the oddity of doing so.

Are you really under the impression that reaching towards 'objectivity' will somehow convince me that my emotional reaction to the name 'Aphrodite' is wrong; given that said reaction is not meant to have substantial force?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:If they actually taught you how easy it was to make money with a bit of self saught knowledge in a particular area and some dogged determination the/your government would be fethed.

That figure doesn't surprise me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If world war three ripped down society as we know it and we all went back to the stone age. Acedemic ability would have no bearing on the system of leadership which would develop. No one will be taking orders from a grade a student simply because they are a grade a student. And in actual fact, it's no different today. The business owners, the people who employ everyone else, the people who effectively rule the world, are a group who vary academicly from people with straight As to no qualifications at all. That's because grades have no bearing on what they do. It wasn't their grades which got them where they were. Chances are if you got where you were because of academic achievement, your an employee not an employer. And the guy at the top knows less than you about what you do.

Someone did poorly in school, and is now bitter for that failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
Uhhh? Maybe somebody who realizes their daughter is going to be that cute? Good lord, cover the girls up, Aphrodite.

A+ for effort though.

Aphrodite wrote:“I don’t know why. I need someone to be constantly on top of me, making sure I do everything.”

God damn it Aphrodite.

God damn it Aphrodite.

Heh, I missed her quote. It's really pretty ridiculous.

I don't care if it makes me a dirty old man, that girl is friggin cute.

The rest of you people can obsess over the details of grading schemes and how best to get the most out of a student. For me this thread is, and always shall be, all about staying on top of Aphrodite.

Or, whatever, that, but in two years.

I'm seriously trying to imagine the people who wrote this article, who made sure to get that picture and that quote in it. It has to be intentional, no?

Where was she 8 years ago, when I was 16?

But yeah, its at least as intentional as this.

Whoa.

dogma wrote:Where was she 8 years ago, when I was 16?

But yeah, its at least as intentional as this.

umm...

well...

whatwhat wrote:If world war three ripped down society as we know it and we all went back to the stone age. Acedemic ability would have no bearing on the system of leadership which would develop. No one will be taking orders from a grade a student simply because they are a grade a student. And in actual fact, it's no different today. The business owners, the people who employ everyone else, the people who effectively rule the world, are a group who vary academicly from people with straight As to no qualifications at all. That's because grades have no bearing on what they do. It wasn't their grades which got them where they were. Chances are if you got where you were because of academic achievement, your an employee not an employer. And the guy at the top knows less than you about what you do.

Anti-intellectualism always makes me a bit sad.

I mean, I could point the fallacy in the above that presumes good grades don't really help anyone earn money, but that isn't what's really wrong with your post. The real problem is the idea that if we can be successful business owners with poor educations, then having a poor education is alright.

Knowing things is good and makes you a better person. It is just that simple. That academic performance does correlate to higher pay (and that tertiary education does correlate to successful business ownership) is beside the point.

Phryxis wrote:

God damn it Aphrodite.

Heh, I missed her quote. It's really pretty ridiculous.

I don't care if it makes me a dirty old man, that girl is friggin cute.

The rest of you people can obsess over the details of grading schemes and how best to get the most out of a student. For me this thread is, and always shall be, all about staying on top of Aphrodite.

Or, whatever, that, but in two years.

I'm seriously trying to imagine the people who wrote this article, who made sure to get that picture and that quote in it. It has to be intentional, no?

And damn, seeing how no one wants to sit beside her I thought I would have no competition. But now that you're eying her up as well I suppose I have to step up my game plan if I want to stay on top.

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:I agree with K-10 systems with the option to continue for 2 years in order to prepare for college, and further your education in general. Standard K-12 could be considered wasteful in some situations.

Absolutely. I hate this idea that keeping people in school for an extra two years when they're not interested in anything academic or white collar is somehow good for them, or good for the rest of us. Let them get out and then help them get into a trade by taking the resources that would have been used babysitting them for two more years and put that into apprenticeships instead. Encourage people into trades.

If they decide down the track they'd really like to complete highschool, maybe to go on to college, then adult learning should be supported, but the idea of making or even encouraging kids that don't care to sit there for another two years is really wrongheaded, in my opinion.

I wholeheartedly agree. My experiences as a mature student have convinced me of one thing in particular: Education is wasted on young people. Seriously.

I would say that a good 60% of students at my Uni school (Media, Music and Performance) don't deserve to be there. Most of that number don't seem to WANT to be there - I think that for a lot of kids, it's just the 'done' thing to go to university, just another school you have to go to. It makes me sad, because they really don't know how lucky they are to have the opportunity, and they will DEFINITELY regret pissing about for three years and getting a crap degree. If they even get one.

A point on marking: I would prefer an A-F grading system in UK universities. It's what we use at GCSE level and it's a lot less vague than the system we use now, which is basically:

1st, 2:1, 2:2, 3rd

So you get a 'first'. Great. Problem is, it's the same mark whether you get 70% or 99%. Not helpful on an essay mark. Incidentally, I was interested to hear that the pass mark seems to be a lot higher in the US. It's only 40% here. I wonder why that is? It sounds like there's a lot more testing than here - a lot of what I'm doing is essay-writing.

In any case, a perfect illustration of my initial point is that there are people who don't even get 40% for their assignments. That's just laziness.

Yes, yes it is.

A kid in my class got 14% on a music theory test. Shocking.

In the US percentile scores are quite popular; generally these are weighted against success.

How so?

The tendency is to score downwards. For example, a 93% is often an A-.

Albatross wrote:I wholeheartedly agree. My experiences as a mature student have convinced me of one thing in particular: Education is wasted on young people. Seriously.

I would say that a good 60% of students at my Uni school (Media, Music and Performance) don't deserve to be there. Most of that number don't seem to WANT to be there - I think that for a lot of kids, it's just the 'done' thing to go to university, just another school you have to go to. It makes me sad, because they really don't know how lucky they are to have the opportunity, and they will DEFINITELY regret pissing about for three years and getting a crap degree. If they even get one.

Yeah, I think it would work better if university wasn't just the default option. Most kids are there because it's the necessary step before taking a white collar job, not because they actually care that much about learning.

I think it would work best if people went from secondary schooling into the workforce, starting as an accountant's assistant, for instance. They would complete their tertiary education while they worked. I mean, these days most uni courses are basically vocational courses, but for historical reasons they have all these trappings of academia.

If someone wants a degree in pure academia let them, but I think most people looking to be teachers or engineers would be better off working as they did their courses.

So you get a 'first'. Great. Problem is, it's the same mark whether you get 70% or 99%. Not helpful on an essay mark.

That's weird. We always got % scores for our coursework, and then the teacher would tell us the average score. The only time we'd see a grade was at the end of the semester. Just being given a grade and no score for coursework seems really vague and unhelpful.

Incidentally, I was interested to hear that the pass mark seems to be a lot higher in the US. It's only 40% here. I wonder why that is? It sounds like there's a lot more testing than here - a lot of what I'm doing is essay-writing.

I think part of it is due to the US having a lot more T/F components and multi-choice - they bump up scores by a bit. At the end of the its just a number, and doesn't really mean anything without some measure of how hard the test was. Scoring 80% doesn't mean you're any good, if the test was easy and the average was 85%, but there were a few really hard exams I did where the best mark was in the mid-60s.

In any case, a perfect illustration of my initial point is that there are people who don't even get 40% for their assignments. That's just laziness.

Well it depends on how it is marked. 40% of what? It might be that a coherent essay that covers all the main points, but in an entirely superficial way deserves the minimum passing mark... but one school system might designate that 60%, another 50% and another 40%.

@Dogma - See, those mark thresholds are higher, too. Here, 80-100% is an A+. They're pretty rare. I should know, I'm something of a rarity.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:So you get a 'first'. Great. Problem is, it's the same mark whether you get 70% or 99%. Not helpful on an essay mark.

That's weird. We always got % scores for our coursework, and then the teacher would tell us the average score. The only time we'd see a grade was at the end of the semester. Just being given a grade and no score for coursework seems really vague and unhelpful.

Uh, yeah, I probably should have been clearer there... We still get our percentage marks given to us, but to my mind there is a world of difference between 70% and 90%. If I progressed from 70% to 90% over a few years, all my marks would show is a list of firsts. I want the credit, dammit!

Well it depends on how it is marked. 40% of what?

100.

Albatross wrote:A kid in my class got 14% on a music theory test. Shocking.

Shocking? Music doesn't fit the archetype for academia so much as Business and the sciences. I mean, successful musicians typically study music in their youth, and besides being of occasional use to those who really do seek an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of jazz and classical musicianship, music theory teachers at tertiary institutions are the worst kind of old hat. It's like teaching an adult English reading class to a French Canadian. They probably don't even care to read English, but that doesn't mean they can't speak it.

I'm not trying to invalidate your field of study - modern media production and the performance aspect of certain arts are perfectly acceptable, but I wouldn't judge a modern musician on a score in a music theory test.

I agree with what you said before, though... teenagers in performing arts schools are second only to those studying sports science in terms of general academic laziness and "why the hell are you here?" The thing is, the serious ones tend to already know their music theory.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Albatross wrote:A kid in my class got 14% on a music theory test. Shocking.

Shocking? Music doesn't fit the archetype for academia so much as Business and the sciences. I mean, successful musicians typically study music in their youth, and besides being of occasional use to those who really do seek an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of jazz and classical musicianship, music theory teachers at tertiary institutions are the worst kind of old hat.

Oh, Dakka. Where DO you find these people?

So you want an in-depth knowledge of Jazz or Classical musicianship? And as a violinist how do you propose to sight-read your music without a concrete knowledge of music theory? Let's imagine you are a jazz trumpeter: How do you know which modes to use over which chords? How do you know which key you are in? Do you guess? You have a fraction of a second to decide. You have to just 'know' - eyes, brain, fingers. This requires an intimate knowledge of music theory, one that is built up over many years.

How can you analyse a score without knowing what the notation means? How can you have an in-depth knowledge of classical music without analysing musical scores?

Are you high?

Musicology is perfectly suited to academic study. You probably think you're quite hip, don't you? You aren't.

I'm not trying to invalidate your field of study

You couldn't. You would have to know what you where talking about, and you don't seem to.

modern media production and the performance aspect of certain arts are perfectly acceptable, but I wouldn't judge a modern musician on a score in a music theory test.

(sigh)

Yes, you definitely think you're hip. I thought that in your world 'succesful musicians typically study music in their youth'? If a person had done so, then that person should have no difficulty in securing a decent mark. It was a 3-hour exam, which I finished in 45 mins, securing the highest mark in my year by a significant margin, and I started learning music theory from scratch in 2008. Theory is a requirement of my course, a course which has a heavy emphasis on jazz and jazz theory. That person had no excuse not to know their stuff.

Albatross wrote:Uh, yeah, I probably should have been clearer there... We still get our percentage marks given to us, but to my mind there is a world of difference between 70% and 90%. If I progressed from 70% to 90% over a few years, all my marks would show is a list of firsts. I want the credit, dammit!

Ah, that makes more sense. That does seem a really broad range for a single grade. Here we have under 50% is a fail, 50-60% is a pass, 60-70% is a credit pass, 70=80% is a distinction and any more is a high distinction.

100.

But you do get what I mean, yeah?

Albatross wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Albatross wrote:A kid in my class got 14% on a music theory test. Shocking.

Shocking? Music doesn't fit the archetype for academia so much as Business and the sciences. I mean, successful musicians typically study music in their youth, and besides being of occasional use to those who really do seek an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of jazz and classical musicianship, music theory teachers at tertiary institutions are the worst kind of old hat.

Oh, Dakka. Where DO you find these people?

So you want an in-depth knowledge of Jazz or Classical musicianship? And as a violinist how do you propose to sight-read your music without a concrete knowledge of music theory? Let's imagine you are a jazz trumpeter: How do you know which modes to use over which chords? How do you know which key you are in? Do you guess? You have a fraction of a second to decide. You have to just 'know' - eyes, brain, fingers. This requires an intimate knowledge of music theory, one that is built up over many years.

How can you analyse a score without knowing what the notation means? How can you have an in-depth knowledge of classical music without analysing musical scores?

Are you high?

Musicology is perfectly suited to academic study. You probably think you're quite hip, don't you? You aren't.

I'm not trying to invalidate your field of study

You couldn't. You would have to know what you where talking about, and you don't seem to.

modern media production and the performance aspect of certain arts are perfectly acceptable, but I wouldn't judge a modern musician on a score in a music theory test.

(sigh)

Yes, you definitely think you're hip. I thought that in your world 'succesful musicians typically study music in their youth'? If a person had done so, then that person should have no difficulty in securing a decent mark. It was a 3-hour exam, which I finished in 45 mins, securing the highest mark in my year by a significant margin, and I started learning music theory from scratch in 2008. Theory is a requirement of my course, a course which has a heavy emphasis on jazz and jazz theory. That person had no excuse not to know their stuff.

Read the post before you flip your wig, Kojak. All I'm saying is you don't necessarily rip on the guy who flunks music theory.

I said I know perfectly well that a lot of music students are there for the ride. A lot of them don't need to know the theory and need a few years to jack around until their band is ready, or else they're just wasting time because they're hopeless. They shouldn't be where they are, and you clearly should be because you appreciate what is being offered to you.

You just don't need to do a degree to learn music theory. The teachers are there to weed out people not suited to the academic side of it - musicology... but a lot of the people who flunk out are still going to go a long way, and in the mean time it's people like that whose wasted fees keep your precious music school open while they're closing the world over due to problems with funding. Respect them.

I understand that you've come to music late in life and understand it in a different way, but the following is just pointless:

So you want an in-depth knowledge of Jazz or Classical musicianship? And as a violinist how do you propose to sight-read your music without a concrete knowledge of music theory? Let's imagine you are a jazz trumpeter: How do you know which modes to use over which chords? How do you know which key you are in? Do you guess? You have a fraction of a second to decide. You have to just 'know' - eyes, brain, fingers. This requires an intimate knowledge of music theory, one that is built up over many years.

How can you analyse a score without knowing what the notation means? How can you have an in-depth knowledge of classical music without analysing musical scores?

Of course you cannot analyse a score without understanding notation. It is made up of notation. Ever heard of playing by ear? Modes do come naturally to some, very rare people. It is a developed skill in any case, but there is more than one way to acquire it.
You can't analyse the spelling of a written sentence if you can't read. You can still probably speak and have a perfectly good understanding of verbal grammar without knowing what the symbols mean. Some musicians really do just know. And let me tell you, people like me who had to learn it the normal way can be a bit envious, but I'm not going to pull my hair out over it. Of course you don't bloody guess. I wasn't having a go at you and I made it very clear that classical and jazz musicianship are different things.

Met many music producers? Try to have a sustained music theory conversation with one of them... oh yeah, that's not their job. It shouldn't take very long with a little bit of research for you to come up with a long list of extremely talented musicians and composers who have/had very little or no foundation in musical theory. The Box. Get out of it.

Bring back the old 11 plus, then put kids in schools based on their abililities and educational leanings.

Put those who are more acedemic in schools with a heavy tilt towards science, maths, etc.

People who are more artistically inclined go to schools catering to the arts, music, languages, etc.

People who are more skillful with their hands go to schools where you learn practical trades; plumbing, mechanics, nursing etc.

Everyone gets a general education alongside their more specialised one so everyone knows a bit of history, a bit of english, a bit of science and a bit of practical skill.

The number of kids I overhear on my way to work saying how they will be getting 2-3 D's at A-level (usually in some wishy-washy subjects like general studies, etc) and will "probably" go to university to do "something, you know?" is just disturbing.

SilverMK2 wrote:The number of kids I overhear on my way to work saying how they will be getting 2-3 D's at A-level (usually in some wishy-washy subjects like general studies, etc) and will "probably" go to university to do "something, you know?" is just disturbing.

I think it's alright to be undecided about the future of your life at the age of 16. I think we need broad education, and plenty of scope to leave and re-enter education.

These kids would be 17-18, since this particular conversation I was relating happened just before the schools broke up and they had done all their exams.

Though as you say, it is perfectly reasonable to not have a clear idea what you want to go on and do at the age of 16, by 18 you should have a clearer grasp of both what you want to do, and what you are likely to be qualified to do.

At 18 I was unsure as to whether to go and do software engineering, biology or physics at university - I was qualified to do all 3 and in the end chose a subject which combined all these subjects into 1.

But the point is that no matter how decided or undecided you are about what you want to do after you leave school, you still need the grades to back you up in your choice. These children were talking about going to university with 2-3 D's at A-level... anyone who can't at least get 3C's really isn't trying, or isn't suited for acedemic study and may be better suited with a different type of learning.

Though as you say, the ability to leave and re-enter learning is one which should be more available. Lots of people regret having let their education slip in their youth and want to go back to it later on in life. People should never be stopped from bettering themselves.