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.

A lot of the issues people have, specifically with critical thinking, and understanding how conclusions have been made are all covered under one umbrella term in the UK.

Research methods.

It also happens to be the lowest achieving unit/module(s) in terms of final grade and the module a student is most likely to fail... Not to mention (and this has been discussed before in the conspiracy thread) that research methods tends to be taught within scientific pathways (BSc) but sometimes not at all or in such rigorous standards in the art pathways (BA's), specifically in the sociological fields where a lot of the seriously bats**t crazy findings have been made of late in academia, namely because validity, reliability, accuracy and precision are seen as less 'vital' in such fields where plenty of qualitative research is accrued.

I'm not going to rehash the same debate we had there but yeah, I do relatively stand by my notion that critical thinking is not for everyone, for reasons I stated in the conspiracy thread, be it capability in terms of intelligence, processing ability under timed constraint, related to conditions the person has such as being on the spectrum etc...

I teach research methods myself mind, and the fundamental issue teaching it to students is that they find it boring... I base a lot of mine around human experimentation, specifically by the nazi's in world war II, nothing like a bit of gore to keep people gripped into a topic, it also gives a great opportunity to discuss ethical conduct and the product of the experiments. Undoubtedly they were wrong, and almost certainly would not be conducted in this day and age, however, how many lives have been saved because of the findings of this research? Whilst the research was evil, does this mean it should not be used? That is what would happen under modern day ethical guidelines, the findings would be immediately invalidated even though there is 80 years of research and practice to prove the findings are valid...

True, but as a baseline the socratic method teaches the asking of questions to determine the meaning of the things you are talking about. This deeper study should prompt better understanding of the issues at hand, and move away from any pre emptive opinions clouding the judgement. In theory at least.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im gonna ramble a bit, mostly about science in school.
I have always had this problem with science in school sometimes just being "Facts" here is how X happens and here is the result. even experiments are not experiments, just arts & crafts with a scientific bent, which are fine when your are in elementary school.
But we are not taught how scientists reach the conclusions they do and why the sometimes might be wrong or the scientific process from conception of an experiment, to paper funding.

I think focusing on something akin for that can lead to a good outcome. But because it isnt "ULTRA COOL SCIENCE FACTS THAT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND" it isnt important.

quite frankly, teaching the scientific method, falsification, verification etc. and showing on a small scale exemple then extrapolating it with bigger exemples, might indeed be the best way to stop the hostility torwards academia.

However, that also requires academics to accept that people with "lower" educational standards are just as important. i can't tell you how many times i heard deamaning and belitteling comments of higher educated people torwards plumbers f.e. and then utterly breaking down after their toilet broke down...

It goes both ways, with "Blue Collar" workers tend to think that nothing beyond what they need to know is "extra" and other less savory words.
Mike Rowe gives a good idea of how people think that all you need to know is what it is go get the job done.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is we are easily at a point now where most kids are going to be more IT Literate than course material. AT least for most basic things.

IT has always been that way. I started my B.IT in 1994. Most of the kids in the class knew far more than the lecturers and the Uni's systems admin, whose job largely seemed to consist of finding and removing all of the installations of Doom that the students kept putting back on the lab PCs.

I did a Cert 3 in IT, focusing on webdesign in about 2002 (just as Dreamweaver was getting big... great timing there) and it was exactly the same, just with less Doom. The only part of that course that was actually new information to most of the students was the Access module, since nobody actually ever used Access for anything outside of IT courses, as far as I'm aware.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is pretty much my problem with how science is taught.
I have seen so many people say they "Love" science when in reality they just love the product of science(Cool Hubble Telescope pictures or Cool Rockets) Because that is what we have been taought, too look at the product of science, as science.

There certainly needs to be a solid focus on the mind-numbingly boring information-gathering side of science. At least enough to make students aware that it's there before they make career choices...

Yeah, Im just starting at 28, to understand science is 100% different from what i thought it was. Probably would have not a different way if I didnt just think "Well if i just learn this stuff, I can call myself X"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im gonna ramble a bit, mostly about science in school.
I have always had this problem with science in school sometimes just being "Facts" here is how X happens and here is the result. even experiments are not experiments, just arts & crafts with a scientific bent, which are fine when your are in elementary school.
But we are not taught how scientists reach the conclusions they do and why the sometimes might be wrong or the scientific process from conception of an experiment, to paper funding.

I think focusing on something akin for that can lead to a good outcome. But because it isnt "ULTRA COOL SCIENCE FACTS THAT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND" it isnt important.

quite frankly, teaching the scientific method, falsification, verification etc. and showing on a small scale exemple then extrapolating it with bigger exemples, might indeed be the best way to stop the hostility torwards academia.

However, that also requires academics to accept that people with "lower" educational standards are just as important. i can't tell you how many times i heard deamaning and belitteling comments of higher educated people torwards plumbers f.e. and then utterly breaking down after their toilet broke down...

It goes both ways, with "Blue Collar" workers tend to think that nothing beyond what they need to know is "extra" and other less savory words.
Mike Rowe gives a good idea of how people think that all you need to know is what it is go get the job done.

Oh i absolutely agree hence why i think both sides should actually occaisonally be forced to atleast be exposed to such processes....

 Vulcan wrote:
Ultimately, the problem in American and English education systems is that politics is involved in the education systems beyond making sure there is adequate funding. Once funding levels are met politics and politicians need to STAY OUT OF IT and let professional teachers handle it. And that needs to be TEACHERS, not professional administrators saying 'no, you can't do that' who've never taught a class ever, not professional curriculum developers with a product to sell, TEACHERS in charge and running things.

Yeah... I don't really agree with that. I finished my undergrad at a what was effectively a state school that specialized in cranking out teachers (and a masters at another). They were woefully, woefully uneducated.
They'd have classes about crafts and holiday projects, but have a grand total of _4_ electives in their 'specialization' (history, math, etc). They basically knew nothing about the subjects they were teaching, just that they needed to teach to the standardized tests and not get caught drinking during their degree, else they'd be disqualified from the teacher's license. Most teachers (at the elementary and high school level) latch on to the minimum current state of knowledge in their field when they graduated and never get past that.
They don't have any business at all deciding what to teach.

Wow that is, Grim...

 insaniak wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Thing is we are easily at a point now where most kids are going to be more IT Literate than course material. AT least for most basic things.

IT has always been that way. I started my B.IT in 1994. Most of the kids in the class knew far more than the lecturers and the Uni's systems admin, whose job largely seemed to consist of finding and removing all of the installations of Doom that the students kept putting back on the lab PCs.

Ugh- I started out in computer science (didn't stick with it for a lot of reasons), but one of the requirements was buying a UNIX system to work on. Catch was, no member of the department faculty used the system. The previous two years of students had to buy some form of Commodore computer professional system (which I didn't even know existed at the time), and the staff was still using Apples from two years before that. So the computer science department ended up finding a third year chem student who happened to know UNIX systems to teach us how to use ours, because they couldn't be bothered to get some for the department and learn how to use them.

Great first impression!

Voss wrote:
Most teachers (at the elementary and high school level) latch on to the minimum current state of knowledge in their field when they graduated and never get past that.

In fairness this is how many people are in work. They learn what they need to achieve their job to a minimum-decent standard and don't push further.
Which raises two points

1) In relation to the original point your commenting on - teachers being on teaching boards - I'd say that your minimum standards type teachers are less likely to put themselves forward for additional roles like that. In theory the "cream" should rise to the top and the better qualified and more experienced teachers would rise up. At least if the system changes to favour academic standards as one of the criteria.

2) I'd say that the whole concept of mark-schemes and curriculum actually feeds into lazy/unenthusiastic teachers. See when your students will only get points if they answer according to the marks scheme then as a teacher you've only any need to teach the points on the syllabus. Teaching outside of it is at best "wasting time" because your students will get no marks for it; and at worst could lead to students getting lower marks because you teach them something on the same subject, but which isn't "correct" according to the mark scheme.
I've spoken to teachers who have had both when marking exams - students that make good points that win them no points; and students who have put more up-to-date information in, which is correct, but which is "wrong" according to the mark scheme.


The worst part is that it also punishes enthusiastic students. Why learn more about a subject than what the teacher tells you when you could get lower marks or no net gain for your efforts. In theory students reading outside the text book and furthering their studies should be rewarded within the system. Universities seem to manage internal marketing and standards, but for some reason schools seem to be slaved to a system where teachers are not trusted to mark their own students work; or where material outside the mark scheme is not permitted.



In general its a symptom of trying to achieve a universal standard over a whole nation based on specific results. Such a system is always going to lag behind the latest publications or even quite recent ones. It's also going to lean heavily toward singular facts and viewpoints for many subjects.

National Mark schemes are also a thing i don't know.
Normally for us you get a Curriculum with x hours subject and what Level students should be and skills they should learn but Tests were often written locally or per teacher Basis on what they need to have taught you according to the Level.
I can't even fathom the burocracy involved in such a System.

 Overread wrote:

Voss wrote:
Most teachers (at the elementary and high school level) latch on to the minimum current state of knowledge in their field when they graduated and never get past that.

In fairness this is how many people are in work. They learn what they need to achieve their job to a minimum-decent standard and don't push further.

I'd agree with that in general. However, I'm personally more used to professions that push 'continued education' as a normal part of professional development, and find it rather baffling and offensive that teaching doesn't. (at least not in states I'm familiar with). Real estate does here, but not teaching.


When I was in Virginia, the teachers I knew would complain about teaching to standardized tests (the SoL tests, which is an unfortunate acronym, but accurate from the way they talked about them). Teaching outside the test material meant lower job performance reviews.

Voss wrote:
I'd agree with that in general. However, I'm personally more used to professions that push 'continued education' as a normal part of professional development, and find it rather baffling and offensive that teaching doesn't. (at least not in states I'm familiar with). Real estate does here, but not teaching.

From my experience, most workplaces don't give a damn about your professional development (unless they're receiving a subsidy of some kind for it), they just want the work done. And on the flipside of that, a lot of employees are equally uninterested in development... they just want to show up, do their job, collect their paycheque and go home.

It's slightly different but the end results is the same in the UK education system in regards to teachers....

I've been waiting for the perfect opportunity to start my masters.... The job requires so much that I can't commit to it, I'm not spending £10k+ to do a below par job... I do, do my own research and knowledge acquisition to be fair as I continue to be interested deeply in the subject, many teachers see it as just a career/job unfortunately.

Anyway, all teachers are required to do CPD in the UK, however, it hardly ever relates to knowledge of the subject, it relates to the practice of teaching... It's accepted the teacher has the knowledge to teach at the level they are teaching, they are just continually trained to do it better basically.

I'm waiting to see how this year plays out, if I'm teaching at home a lot, or it looks like I will be, I may go ahead with a masters.

In regards to teaching to tests/exams... This is a fundamental issue with them, you inevitably will teach to the exam, because you want all students to pass/get higher grades, yeah there is a selfish element to that, but you must remember the students we teach are humans, we get to know them, on the whole we like them, they deserve good grades... We don't decide the assessment methods used to help them succeed, we have to go with the instructed process, so its logical we teach to the test. I don't agree with it at all mind, but I don't work for awarding bodies (something I actually may look at doing in future, try change them from the inside).

 insaniak wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'd agree with that in general. However, I'm personally more used to professions that push 'continued education' as a normal part of professional development, and find it rather baffling and offensive that teaching doesn't. (at least not in states I'm familiar with). Real estate does here, but not teaching.

From my experience, most workplaces don't give a damn about your professional development (unless they're receiving a subsidy of some kind for it), they just want the work done. And on the flipside of that, a lot of employees are equally uninterested in development... they just want to show up, do their job, collect their paycheque and go home.

Oh, I don't disagree with that.

Ran into it a lot with my archives Masters, as the faculty was obsessed with theory (and offered basically no practical skills), but I'd come into it from the workplace. So their insistence that employers wanted archivists who could babble about the latest theory from the professional journals and keep up with the latest 'global standards' rang a bit hollow. The archives I'd already worked for wanted people who could adapt to -their-system and get on with clearing the backlog already. The last thing they wanted was a theorist to come along and create an even larger backlog in transferring everything already done over to the 'current standard' (that would only last a couple years anyway).

On the employee side, it depends. I've spent a lot of time with the National Park Service, and development there gets you a lot of perks, including just being out of the office and away from your coworkers. But there are a lot of bonuses and additional pay opportunities involved.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

It goes both ways, with "Blue Collar" workers tend to think that nothing beyond what they need to know is "extra" and other less savory words.
Mike Rowe gives a good idea of how people think that all you need to know is what it is go get the job done.

Which is adequate if ALL you plan to do with your life is work one job. Heaven help you if that job becomes obsolete, though. Doesn't matter if you're the greatest buggy-whip manufacturer if no one even owns a buggy, much less needs a whip to go with it. So knowing more than what is necessary to do ONE job helps you avoid becoming obsolete yourself.

If you plan to participate in politics, you need a LOT more information to vote intelligently... something often overlooked.

 Vulcan wrote:
Doesn't matter if you're the greatest buggy-whip manufacturer if no one even owns a buggy, much less needs a whip to go with it.

Is it sad that my first thought on reading this was an image of Dunebuggy pulling a cart of dry goods and getting whipped by some guy shouting 'mush'?

Anyway, I think this is going to be more and more important.

What exactly are all the truck drivers going to be doing in 10 years? We can all complain about the potential safety of self-driving vehicles, but it's fething happening and we all know it. There's too much money to be made in not having to pay people to do the job for it not to happen. Where are those tens of thousands of people going to work with a job skill that is utterly obsolete? Hang out at the watering hole with the horses? Maybe a 4-Year degree isn't the best answer to every problem, but we seriously need some kind of system for retraining workers or moving people from one market sector that doesn't need them to another. And people will bitch about that I know, but hey. They're the ones with a job complaining about how they don't have a job. You can either get a new one or bitch all day only one is likely to pay you... Although the internet is full of people getting paid to bitch.

In any case, I feel like we're rapidly approaching the point where we can either start dealing the unemployment like adults, or we can just make pithy comments about boots and straps and enjoy all the wonders of a large and permanent underclass that can't get work.

Voss wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Ultimately, the problem in American and English education systems is that politics is involved in the education systems beyond making sure there is adequate funding. Once funding levels are met politics and politicians need to STAY OUT OF IT and let professional teachers handle it. And that needs to be TEACHERS, not professional administrators saying 'no, you can't do that' who've never taught a class ever, not professional curriculum developers with a product to sell, TEACHERS in charge and running things.

Yeah... I don't really agree with that. I finished my undergrad at a what was effectively a state school that specialized in cranking out teachers (and a masters at another). They were woefully, woefully uneducated.
They'd have classes about crafts and holiday projects, but have a grand total of _4_ electives in their 'specialization' (history, math, etc). They basically knew nothing about the subjects they were teaching, just that they needed to teach to the standardized tests and not get caught drinking during their degree, else they'd be disqualified from the teacher's license. Most teachers (at the elementary and high school level) latch on to the minimum current state of knowledge in their field when they graduated and never get past that.
They don't have any business at all deciding what to teach.

Fair point. Before you can have teachers run teaching, you need teachers, not fools who think they are teachers because they passed a course.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Doesn't matter if you're the greatest buggy-whip manufacturer if no one even owns a buggy, much less needs a whip to go with it.

Is it sad that my first thought on reading this was an image of Dunebuggy pulling a cart of dry goods and getting whipped by some guy shouting 'mush'?

Anyway, I think this is going to be more and more important.

What exactly are all the truck drivers going to be doing in 10 years? We can all complain about the potential safety of self-driving vehicles, but it's fething happening and we all know it. There's too much money to be made in not having to pay people to do the job for it not to happen. Where are those tens of thousands of people going to work with a job skill that is utterly obsolete? Hang out at the watering hole with the horses? Maybe a 4-Year degree isn't the best answer to every problem, but we seriously need some kind of system for retraining workers or moving people from one market sector that doesn't need them to another. And people will bitch about that I know, but hey. They're the ones with a job complaining about how they don't have a job. You can either get a new one or bitch all day only one is likely to pay you... Although the internet is full of people getting paid to bitch.

In any case, I feel like we're rapidly approaching the point where we can either start dealing the unemployment like adults, or we can just make pithy comments about boots and straps and enjoy all the wonders of a large and permanent underclass that can't get work.

If my truck driving cousin is any example, just go get another job. That is what he says whenever people complain about lack of work. Just go get another jobs

 Vulcan wrote:
Fair point. Before you can have teachers run teaching, you need teachers, not fools who think they are teachers because they passed a course.

I took IT evening classes while working full-time (to prove to myself I actually knew what I was going on about). When I graduated from them, the uni offered everyone a free teaching conversion short-course (to become a 'qualified' teacher in 4 - 6 months)...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Doesn't matter if you're the greatest buggy-whip manufacturer if no one even owns a buggy, much less needs a whip to go with it.

Is it sad that my first thought on reading this was an image of Dunebuggy pulling a cart of dry goods and getting whipped by some guy shouting 'mush'?

Anyway, I think this is going to be more and more important.

What exactly are all the truck drivers going to be doing in 10 years? We can all complain about the potential safety of self-driving vehicles, but it's fething happening and we all know it. There's too much money to be made in not having to pay people to do the job for it not to happen. Where are those tens of thousands of people going to work with a job skill that is utterly obsolete? Hang out at the watering hole with the horses? Maybe a 4-Year degree isn't the best answer to every problem, but we seriously need some kind of system for retraining workers or moving people from one market sector that doesn't need them to another. And people will bitch about that I know, but hey. They're the ones with a job complaining about how they don't have a job. You can either get a new one or bitch all day only one is likely to pay you... Although the internet is full of people getting paid to bitch.

In any case, I feel like we're rapidly approaching the point where we can either start dealing the unemployment like adults, or we can just make pithy comments about boots and straps and enjoy all the wonders of a large and permanent underclass that can't get work.

If my truck driving cousin is any example, just go get another job. That is what he says whenever people complain about lack of work. Just go get another jobs

Yeah, that's the easy part. Saying 'Go find another job'.

In case you hadn't noticed, there are two types of jobs, Specialist jobs requiring lots of education... and McJobs that don't, but pay garbage.

So, apologies in advance if this comment gets too close to politics, however I will endeavor to keep it at "historic levels" of politics (ie, nothing current).

So, in many states across the US, especially in the post-WW2 era, you had a glut of new funding for schools. Tons of new jobs required new labor, and many of those jobs required semi-specialized skills (we're talking welding, machine shop stuff, carpentry, etc)

In comes the "Technical school". It's a novel idea: a school which focuses on educating students for a career in a labor field. While students would get some "language arts", history and other general education courses, the focus of the schools were on auto shop, metal shop, wood shop, etc.The academic premise being that students who do not show an aptitude for "college learning" would still be able to attain a decent life.

The problem though, and there were 2 major ones: first was bussing, second was bias. On the bussing front, school districts had a mandated system where they would go anywhere in the district to ensure students made it to and from school. Which isn't a problem. . . however, the way things happened in reality, was that students in poorer neighborhoods were bussed to the tech school, and POC's who lived in otherwise affluent neighborhoods were often bussed there as well. Which leads into problem 2 of bias. . . The courts eventually ruled that the technical school system, as practiced, was discriminatory against persons of color. They were actively suppressing social mobility and enforcing many of the social ills of the day.


Fast forward, and much of the funding mechanics that had previously held US schools to such high standards evaporated. Even State funded universities really aren't today, they are funded through alumni donations and particular major sports revenue.

The two biggest keys, in my mind to the success of any educational system is the acceptance of its value, and revenue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Is it sad that my first thought on reading this was an image of Dunebuggy pulling a cart of dry goods and getting whipped by some guy shouting 'mush'?

Anyway, I think this is going to be more and more important.

What exactly are all the truck drivers going to be doing in 10 years? We can all complain about the potential safety of self-driving vehicles, but it's fething happening and we all know it. There's too much money to be made in not having to pay people to do the job for it not to happen. Where are those tens of thousands of people going to work with a job skill that is utterly obsolete? Hang out at the watering hole with the horses? Maybe a 4-Year degree isn't the best answer to every problem, but we seriously need some kind of system for retraining workers or moving people from one market sector that doesn't need them to another. And people will bitch about that I know, but hey. They're the ones with a job complaining about how they don't have a job. You can either get a new one or bitch all day only one is likely to pay you... Although the internet is full of people getting paid to bitch.

In any case, I feel like we're rapidly approaching the point where we can either start dealing the unemployment like adults, or we can just make pithy comments about boots and straps and enjoy all the wonders of a large and permanent underclass that can't get work.

1. . . that is a cool visual.

2. . . One of the things I noticed, while getting my MBA, was a very stark mindset difference within "business" in America and a country like, say, Germany. . . Part of my school's MBA program was a mandatory study abroad trip (typically 10-14 days, depending on which you took in a given year), and I happened to choose Germany. During said trip, we had many stops with discussions and "class" with various business leaders and by the end of the trip, my entire class came to largely the same conclusion about the mindset of business over there, compared to the US. And that is, as you allude to in your comment about truck drivers soon to be out of work. . . in the US, we have a system which prides itself on maximizing profits over all, which inherently means cutting wages at every opportunity, including cutting the number of employees. In Germany, by and large the business community looks at things with an eye to making their existing employees better at their job. This is done by increasing efficiency, or making certain tasks easier. It is done with an eye to improving the life conditions of the workforce. . . and if we look at things like productivity ratings, we see that in most comparable sectors, German workers, despite working a 32 or 26 hour week, is more productive than their american counterparts working 40+

I'd argue that mindset comes about in some part due to the state and view of the education system.

It seems we have crested the higher education wave where everyone and their pet hamster got a degree.

I had so many friends who graduated uni with me who ended up working in low paid jobs for years, some still do.

Unless you have something very specific in mind(who does at 18?) and the drive to do it it is a massive time and money sink. Which is what I keep telling younger family members. You are far better getting a a core trade/ IT skills, than doing any random degree. Or just take some time off after school, do any kind of work to see what the real world feels like before making decision and getting a drive to achieve.

University degree has been sold as a golden ticket to the last couple generation especially since the introduction of tuition fees. However this falls short for a lot of people and we get a bunch of "educated" young adults who have no idea how to do a job ending up in crap jobs with a feeling of entitlement and depression.

I am glad more and more people view trades with respect and go down that route. I think its healthy to cultivate a an education centred around pragmatism, and being able to making things and build things.

One thing in my experiance that needs to be taught better, at least in North America, is civics. The horrifying ignorance in both Canada and the USA by their citizenry in how their government is supposed to work is just SCARY

Things I want to see more of:

1. Basic civics classes that will let people know how government works (at least in their country). I don't know how many people I've hired (17-25 years old) that don't know basic things like how the electoral college works, who the Vice President is, who makes laws, etc. I actually had to take an employee to the post office to register for selective service once before he violated federal law and messed up his chance for college.

2. Home Economics doing better with basic life skills in the home. Sure, making that 5th pastry in one semester is awesome, but I'd like to see a little more effort being made on how to plan meals, and how to afford them, on a working-person's budget.

3. Basic home/auto repairs.

4. Basic life skills. How to plan ahead. How to not get yourself killed if you get stuck somewhere in winter. basic first aid, etc.

5 Actually failing students. I've seen some people that graduated high school with their peers that really shouldn't have. They just get passed up the ranks of the school until it's not the school's problem any more.

 cuda1179 wrote:


2. Home Economics doing better with basic life skills in the home. Sure, making that 5th pastry in one semester is awesome, but I'd like to see a little more effort being made on how to plan meals, and how to afford them, on a working-person's budget.

3. Basic home/auto repairs.

4. Basic life skills. How to plan ahead. How to not get yourself killed if you get stuck somewhere in winter. basic first aid, etc.

On these items, I absolutely agree with one caveat: EVERY effort needs to be made to ensure that students know these classes are useful for everyone. Before home-ec was cut from my middle and HS (my graduating class was the last to have it throughout our entire school career. . . the middle school cut it after 04, and by 06/07 they had dropped it from HS as well), it was treated largely as a "girl's" class, or the class guys took if they wanted to hang out with their girl crush for a semester. Seriously. Most of the guys I knew who took those classes, passed, but didn't do a single thing in class, instead relying on the work of their female cohorts.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:


2. Home Economics doing better with basic life skills in the home. Sure, making that 5th pastry in one semester is awesome, but I'd like to see a little more effort being made on how to plan meals, and how to afford them, on a working-person's budget.

3. Basic home/auto repairs.

4. Basic life skills. How to plan ahead. How to not get yourself killed if you get stuck somewhere in winter. basic first aid, etc.

On these items, I absolutely agree with one caveat: EVERY effort needs to be made to ensure that students know these classes are useful for everyone. Before home-ec was cut from my middle and HS (my graduating class was the last to have it throughout our entire school career. . . the middle school cut it after 04, and by 06/07 they had dropped it from HS as well), it was treated largely as a "girl's" class, or the class guys took if they wanted to hang out with their girl crush for a semester. Seriously. Most of the guys I knew who took those classes, passed, but didn't do a single thing in class, instead relying on the work of their female cohorts.

You see, that's just a pity. My parents insisted I learn to do the following things with proficiency before I moved out: 1. Balance a Checkbook 2. do my own taxes 3. change a tire 4. change my car's oil 5. read a paper map 6. sew a queen-sized bedspread 7. cook a full meal, from scratch, using NOTHING instant 8. Save half of what I earn 9. Wash my own clothes.

My parents were old-school, but both insisted that I learn both the "man chores" and the "woman things". Being broke, smelly, and malnourished is no way to go through life.

Home economics - life skills - even sex education can be classes that most students and teachers tend to treat as a bit of a "lax" period.

You don't get graded at the end, there's no test there's no pass and there's no fail. So there's no real pressure at either end of the scale. Students also often feel that "they know it all anyway" in those types of class.


I think that whilst I'd not want them to shift into a full "this is test zone pass fail" I would think that there's likely an attitude change toward those classes which is needed. A core part might well be (esp in the case of life skills and sex ed) ensuring that teachers are better trained, educated and equipped for those lessons. Since often as not they appear to be given to any teacher with a time slot for the period to teach the students.






I also agree that the University degree has been sold as a golden ticket. The problem as I see it though is it was sold as a golden ticket to both employees and employers. So its raised a whole series of generations who think that they have to get a degree to progress AND a whole series of generations who think they need to have staff with a degree to get good staff (or to progress staff up the scale). It's an immensely effective system for boosting student numbers in university education (and student loans) even if people are both ends feel that the university teaching isn't actually giving the employee "real" skills for their job.
I'm not denying the value of seal learning and research methods, but at the end of the day most of what a uni course teaches is how to read multiple sources and write an essay. Skills that could be taught and gained through life or through a training course for those who have need of those specific skills. Just like if you're a land worker your employer will put you through specific tool/machine training if its required and will ensure that your training tickets for existing skills that are required, are kept up to date.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:

You see, that's just a pity. My parents insisted I learn to do the following things with proficiency before I moved out: 1. Balance a Checkbook 2. do my own taxes 3. change a tire 4. change my car's oil 5. read a paper map 6. sew a queen-sized bedspread 7. cook a full meal, from scratch, using NOTHING instant 8. Save half of what I earn 9. Wash my own clothes.

My parents were old-school, but both insisted that I learn both the "man chores" and the "woman things". Being broke, smelly, and malnourished is no way to go through life.

Another aspect I think we shouldn't forget is repetition.
Changing a care tyre is something that most people still call the service people out for. Not because they can't do it, but because they've only done it that one or two times in their life before. So whilst they can do it they can't remember how to do it. It's EVER so easy to do something daft like position the jack wrongly or to do the nuts up in a circle and not alternating.

Actually on that subject I think the highway code and basic theory of driving should be taught at schools. Highway code from a young age, basic driving theory once you're getting closer to being eligible to take a test. For something that is a key life skill for the vast majority of it it baffles me that, typically unless you're a farmer, you won't sit in a car to drive or train or really learn anything about it, until you're in your late teens or twenties. Even then the amount of hours many spend behind the wheel being trained is tiny - some even manage to "cram" in a few weeks with an intensive course and pass.

Roads and cars are a big part of modern life. We should be teaching students how to read roads, navigate roads and how to behave on the road from a young age. For any that might ride a bicycle its already providing a valuable amount of training in specifically how the road works and also how car drivers are thinking and assessing situations.



PS with all these essential skills we are adding for teaching - any of us got any idea how to fit all the extra into the school system? UK side state schools tend to finish at about 3-4pm whilst private tend to finish closer to 5pm. Of course this balances out with state spending more weeks at school so that both balance out the total number of hours. One could claw back those hours by simply increasing the term time for private and increasing the school day length for state. In fact when you consider how many parents have to both work now it baffles me that we keep state schools ending early and thus forcing one parent to have to leave work early or juggle their work hours to be away before the end of the work day. Of course I guess one reason for it is to try and reduce traffic congestion, but we only do it in the evening; come the morning everyone is heading to school/work at the same time.

 Argive wrote:
It seems we have crested the higher education wave where everyone and their pet hamster got a degree.

I had so many friends who graduated uni with me who ended up working in low paid jobs for years, some still do.

Unless you have something very specific in mind(who does at 18?) and the drive to do it it is a massive time and money sink. Which is what I keep telling younger family members. You are far better getting a a core trade/ IT skills, than doing any random degree. Or just take some time off after school, do any kind of work to see what the real world feels like before making decision and getting a drive to achieve.

University degree has been sold as a golden ticket to the last couple generation especially since the introduction of tuition fees. However this falls short for a lot of people and we get a bunch of "educated" young adults who have no idea how to do a job ending up in crap jobs with a feeling of entitlement and depression.

The issue is the bold rather than the italics - aside from educated in inverted commas, which is a very loaded and potentially patronising judgement.

[From a UK perspective, but largely applicable across Europe] Higher education, outside of a few vocational courses, simply isn't traditionally meant to get people jobs. Some unis, mostly ex-polytechnics, specifically downplay academia in favour of job skills/transferable skills/whatever the current marketing speak is but mostly they're also teaching courses that are more explicitly vocational in the first place. More academic research institutions like to talk about their ability to get people jobs, and their administrators like to demand that we frame course proposals around the transferable skills that students will gain, but they generally make more of a song and dance about research-led teaching - and not that many people are researching 'finding and holding a job'. We're mostly still dealing in very niche topics and the real skills that are being taught (encouraged, really, I think it's deceptive for most of us to be described as 'teaching') are research, analysis, and presentation of results. Even in my department, where we do a lot of practical stuff to prepare people who want to work in commercial archaeology, the bulk of our undergraduate courses concern pretty focussed regions and periods or theory. Not many practical applications outside of academia for the relational ontologies and 3rd millennium religious landscape experiences that I talk to students about... It makes no sense to criticise these types of degrees because they don't prepare people for jobs. That isn't their purpose.

Universities are for educating people - in whatever those people fancy. Governments (and schools) trying to convince people that they're a gateway to employment and affluence are the issue.

That reminds me that my geography course had 100 students in the first year. When it came to skills teaching them was a bit of a mess because you have SO many students. Even by 3rd year you can still have optional models with large numbers of students and only one or two staff. That makes it very hard to teach multiple practical skills and I'd argue most graduate only knowing the practical skill(s) that were required for their chosen research project for the year (gah the name if it escapes me now)

I recall staff frustrated on one field trip that we couldn't use the soil charts well on our own. Thing was we had never really used them nor had any repetition of their use. It wasn't highly complex, but it was simply that there was no training build up and no reinforcement of training.

By situation both schools and uni tend to end up with an ineffective "one and done" on a lot of hands on skills. OF course the cure is simple - more teachers/lecturers so that class sizes come down dramatically. The cornerstone that breaks it is affording those teaching staff.