Here's a rant, please comment as you so choose.

Education is required for any advanced society. Western society has had schools for most of its history. But with the apparent love for "equal education for all", so all can have an oppurtunity to succeed, education has become mere academics, and academics are the enemy of learning.

We have gotten to a point in America where aceing the test is more important than learning. Standardized tests screw over the even remotely intelligent due to the amount of wasted time we have to take to learn how to pass the test as opposed to learning the material. They're also bad for slow kids since they can't learn at their own pace.

The humanities are dying. Fast. Nobody seems to care about literature or the arts. Why? Because they don't make kids money. The social sciences are just above them on the "lack of dignity" scale. Because history is such a waste of time.

College mania is also killer of learning. People are so obsessed with doing well on tests to get a higher GPA to compete with your friends to get into a better college to get a high paying job and put all the money in your living space into material concrete objects they forget to LEARN.

Philosophy is taken as a joke. Why? "It's only academic" is the response. How ironic. Love of learning is dead and has been replaced with a waste of time to pass tests. When finals become more important than classes, it's time to rethink our educational system.

That is all.

I completely agree. I believe that we should simply do away with grades entirely standardized tests should be eliminated as well. But, not only do these hinder our learning, but where I live it's made the school system lazy. A lot of our grade in math comes from a computerized program called Accelerated Math. This program generates random problems of random categories and to get an A in Accelerated Math for a grading period you have to score at least 80% of a certain number of categories (usually 25-55 from my experience, it's harder than it sounds). However, they should merely teach us and we should merely learn in my opinion. Who are they to grade how well we have learned? Some people aren't good at tests and I'm sure there are a number of other resons for intelligent people not doing well. And social sciences (I'm assuming this is the same as social studies) unimportant? That's laughable, at best. It's extremely important, my favorite teacher ever, who was a social studies teacher, gave us two good reasons why social studies is important (and there are probably many more). These are a.) "How can you protect your freedoms if you don't know what they are?" and b.) "If you don't learn history you're doomed to repeat." He said he quoted b.) from some Spanish guy. So, yes, a reform of the school system is definitely in order.

The sad trade-off is that doing that would ruin our national education system. We need these tests and grades because "old school" education doesn't work on such a large scale. A happy medium is perhaps possible, localization of schooling to rid it from state beaurocracy is a start, with funding coming directly from the federal government. They can take it out of the military, or welfare.Social sciences are sociology, anthropolgy, psychology, and social studies is synonomous to history more or less.

Standardised tests are the bane of my existence. It's unfair to assume that one test is a fair assessment of everything that one is capable of. It also takes all of the character out of learning; instead of teaching so that students may learn, it becomes necessary to teach that they may pass an arbitrary test. Tests should not become the blueprint for what needs to be taught, especially since the people who make the tests cannot fit everything that can be learned on one test. It's ridiculous.

Furthermore, it's true, standardised tests don't focus on the humanities. History? Not on them. Lit? A monkey could read their selections. All tests continue along those trends. Now they're adding an essay; and guess what, you have one page and twenty minutes to follow their stupid rules and write like a bloody robot. That's if you can even write coherently at all (see grammar rant in previous thread), which is by no means assured. Academic priorities are completely warped. In my glorious institute of learning, 20 credits of whapping a volleyball back and forth across a net are required, whereas only 5 credits of "the arts" are necessary--and Into to Keyboarding (quite conveniently, a required course) counts. How?!

It's extremely frustrating. The crap mag PsychWardMike and I help edit could have been better written by a gerbil. Why? Because few people can write in an articulate manner anymore, and because the blather that people do manage to pound out has little depth or meaning. Academia, in some senses, has stripped people not only of concrete skills, but also of those to think and reason for themselves in an incredibly complex world--one which cannot be simplified down to a, b, c, and d.

'Exams are pointless'. Discuss. Please use more than one side of paper if necessary.

'Education' is not _really_ about making you learn things. It is to a certain level, but that is not the sole point of it. The reason for it is to prove how adaptable you are to new ideas. The intention of education is to produce people who are equipped with ideas that they can then use in their life. You do this by playing a game called 'exams'.

Exams are completely necessary, despite not being a good reflection of the working world, because some sort of standardised testing is needed. There is no point in getting a certificate saying that you have attended school for ten years if it doesn't say whether you actually demonstrated any willingness to engage with the ideas there.

Would you like it if, after many years of schooling where you have been attentive and hard-working the lazy kid who never did anything gets the same certificate as you?

As I have probably said on here a few times before, the education system is a game in which you play to try and get the highest score you can. It is not about being creative, and it is not about knowing the most. It is about finding out what you need to know to get the score you need.

A good result in an exam _should_ demonstrate that you have played the game well because you have found out what you need to know and do to pass. Of course, it is also down to whether you have a good teacher who is capable of informing you of the right things that you need to know to get the score you need, so all exams are a test of their skill too.

If you play the game right you will not prove that you are a genius at your subject, you will instead prove that you have either the willing or the aptitude to learn ideas about that subject.

Exams are stressful and don't bring out the best in people, it has been shown that men do better than women in them. Then again, distributed marking through coursework has been shown to give a preference to women. There's no simple solution that will fit everyone. You can't have no form of assessment, and with all assessment there will be pressure.

Standardised testing does mean that even if you have a clash of personalities with your teacher you still have the chance of getting a good grade.

There are many qualifications that have no direct practical application, but they do demonstrate your capability to think, which is what employers really care about. I know almost no-one who is doing a job related to their degree course. Employers generally only care that you _did_ a degree, not what it was in. Like I say, it's just a game, playing it well demonstrates intellectual flexibility and that is what counts.

Not getting qualifications means that you don't have the shorthand for success to show people, instead you have to prove that you are capable of the job, which is generally a far more long-winded thing to do, and employers like brevity.

Perhaps it is a system that sucks a bit, but I've never heard of anything better to replace it. Standardised testing gets rid of some of the human factor by taking out personal teacher bias, without it exams would be a popularity contest. Without any sort of grading then education would be meaningless.

The problem is that you can't tell a person the value of a good education, so it's hard to make school-children understand that they need to be in lessons when they don't see how it will apply to their adult life. If there was no testing at all then I doubt that as many people would bother to learn. Exams give a sense of short-term purpose to education, because the long-term results are too difficult to quantify.

Mata,

While I agree with what you said on the benefit of exams, I think what Sir Maxerpopple was talking about was the amount of weight placed on exams, rather than their existence (and correct me if I'm wrong, SM).

Whenever I complain about exams, I don't have in mind the end of the year ones that often happen in classes, or the final term papers, or whatnot. I'm talking about exams like Florida's FCAT.

The FCAT is a statewide exam that must be taken every year in the 4th, 8th, and 10th grades. It covers mathematics, english, some science (mine never did, but the new ones might), and writing. And it's one of the most god-awful exams, and ideas, one could think of.

In Florida, the amount of funding a school receives each year is based upon the scores of that school's students on the FCAT. Period. Since the FCAT occurs in every level (elementary, middle, and high school), every school gets graded. The higher the grade, the more money that school makes for the year.

So, teachers and schools poor great amounts of time and money into trying just to pass the FCAT. Not to actually teach their students the information they need to pass college courses, or survive in the business world. Nope, just to pass the FCAT.

Now, I'll grant you this wouldn't be as bad as it is if the FCAT itself weren't a terrible test. The mathematics section is too basic, at least in my opinion. I haven't heard too much about [or can't remember too much about ^_~] the English section to comment, but the writing section is terrible. Students are taught a very, very formulaic and worthless style of writing; it centers on writing five paragraphs--one introduction, three supporting, and one conclusion. While this writing formula is good as an introduction to writing, the importance of the FCAT gives it far more weight than the style deserves, and most students leave high school knowing nothing else. It's gotten so bad that the colleges here in Florida are requiring basic writing courses on grammar and argumentative and technical writing--high school level curriculum--just to get their students to a reasonable level of skill.

Is the principle of standardized tests an inherently bad thing? No. They [the tests] can be very useful, if applied properly. However, when politicians and the public start to see them as the "sole savior" of public schools, and thus overapply the principle, they can turn into a problem.

And, as SM and others have pointed out, standardized tests almost never include the other aspects of human knowledge, such as social studies and behavioral sciences.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

Rather it doesn't bring in any money for the school administrators and it is seen as "superflous fluff", elite, and a waste of time. The U. S. education system is full of politics and it is killing the future of this country! This terminal illness seems to have started in the 1960's and spread from there. Everytime I go to the elementary school where my mom works I see lots of poor children, but not as poor as in wealth. It seems as though there is an increasing number of children who have behavioral and mental problems. Unfortunately, most of these problems come from their parents and society. The superintendent will not build a center for these children because he doesn't want a bad image to be placed on the school system. The school system itself its one of the best in the state. To get back on track, the way athletics are used in schools and everyday life are also hurting our future. Many schools spend what seems like more money on sports than they do academics. Although, I do know some schools receive grants and such for winning state championships, which is stupid. Also, many children believe sports are the only way to get scholarships to go to colleges and universities.

My largest concern is that of music education. Music education has been shown to help improve a students academic success, and help them in the future (yes I know, I sound like a research paper, and I could post mine if anyone wants me to). In the U. S. it seems as though most schools will not have any kind of art cirriculum by the end of this century. Also, I doubt that there will be any kind of music ensemble left in the U. S. by the end of this century. Why? Because of plain barbaric Ignorance!

Oh, one more thing. It seems as though the No Child Left Behind Act is very similar to Kentucky's Educational Reform Act passed in the early ninties. My graduating class was the "guinea pig" of this thing. The first act mentioned most likely will not work. The president already has an example of how it wont work and it is called KERA.



I agree, I usually have trouble expressing myself in the manner I want, that is unless I'm being too hard on myself. Did you know that the average reading level in the U. S. is between the fifth and eighth grades? I think thats pathetic.

I've never heard of or experienced this - and I of all people would, being that I take Philosophy, Sociology, English Language and Government & Politics, and plan to do a Philosophy degree in university. Nobody's ever been critical of my choices, teachers or students.

I agree that too much importance is placed on grades, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be another solution. Most public schools have large class sizes, so a single teacher wouldn't have to time to monitor who is and isn't learning, without testing. The reason for a lot of standardized tests is because, from what I've heard, some teachers can be so lenient and fed up with people in general that they pass kids who can barely read. Standardized tests are horrible (and the one that Ikemook described sounds worse than most) but as far as I can tell there's no better solution out there.

At the same time, it's really discouraging that so few people actually want to learn anymore. In my (former) school there are two types of students: those who skip class, don't work and don't care about grades, and those who study all the time and will do anything to get a good average. Neither of these groups care about learning at all. Even hard-working kids only do so out of pressure from their parents, or sometimes from themselves, to get good marks. To me that's sad, because it seems like the whole purpose of school was for us to learn, which is a great opportunity, but most of us ignore that because we're too obsessed with grades.

It's strange how schools themselves seem to be limiting education these days. Thirty years ago, most public schools had music programs, but now they're eliminating those from a lot of them. The school I used to go to, a private, international school, advertises the fact that they place an emphasis on business in Asia. Why? Because this is what parents think is important. I was lucky enough that my parents couldn't care less whether I went into business, but most don't seem to be like that. They want their kids to get good marks, to go to an expensive/prestigious university, and to make lots of money. No one would send their kids to a school that placed extra emphasis on history, or music, or drama, because that's not important. And no one would cut business or science out of a curriculum, because that is important. Important if you want to make lots of money, and that's what everyone wants, isn't it?

I've lived in Asia most of my life, so my perspective may be a bit different than most people... I don't know if parents are like this in the rest of the world. They might be completely different, for all I know.

"I've never heard of or experienced this - and I of all people would, being that I take Philosophy, Sociology, English Language and Government & Politics, and plan to do a Philosophy degree in university. Nobody's ever been critical of my choices, teachers or students. "

What about in secondary education?

Sure, no one cares in a university. In university's, everyone's doing their own thing.

However, the social studies and behavioral sciences, in my experience, take big hits in secondary education (in US, middle and high school).

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

It seems we're gettng a significant difference between brit systems (and French and Spanish, I can confirm) and the States. The FCAT thing, as described, scares me, and sounds like a classic 'miss-the-point-entirely' way of doing things.

Starting with the Class of 2006, in California, to obtain a diploma, you must pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).

It was due to start this year (Class of 2004, which I was a member of). If you didn't pass the tests, you wouldn't get a diploma, you'd get a Certificate of Attendance.

They make the kids take the tests when they are sophomores, even though the test is supposed to cover everything you learn in high school. They made us take it freshmen year, as guinea pigs. The minimum passing score, for both English and math, was 350. I scored nearly 100 points above for each test.

The tests were mind-numblingly boring -- typical standardized test material. One of the essays topics we had was to write an essay on an essay about a hummingbird.

However, masses of my peers couldn't pass the test, even with repeated testing opportunities (we're talking they took the test 11 times, and still didn't pass it), special test prep summer school classes, and test prep year-round classes.

So, typical California, instead of fixing the school system so that all students could pass the test, just delays the ineveitable and pushes the mandatory date back 2 years.

You got me. Standardized tests are necessary for a large educational system. I am not saying we get rid of tests.

I sense a loss of love among my classmates when it comes to learning. People take AP's for the sole purpose of college, whether they are ready for the course or not. In my school, which is in a very affluent upper middle class town, "suggested" by the guidance counselors mean de facto required for any kid with a high GPA who intends on getting into a good school. Because the area is so competetive, kids focus on the tests and only the tests. It even hurts their ability to do well on them. In history courses, I find people tend to frantically take notes of the lecture, never actually [i]hearing]/i] what's going on. The resultant is a half-assed understanding of details and dynastic chronology. And that's in the AP class. I shudder to think of the useless crap kids are getting taught in regular history classes.While I can't say I know really anything about the British education system, in the high schools there, how much was focused on the humanities and social sciences? Sure, once you get into a liberal arts university here you're free to pursue whatever you so choose. The system is still institutionalized, but you are much more free than in a high school where funding comes from the state.

I hope all of those people wh fought for equal education are happy. They killed it.

That's the problem they have in Maryland, I think. We change our functional tests every 4 years-- just about every time we realize the test isn't doing so hot or isn't really relevant to anything. For the past two years I think they've been giving the HSAs so that they don't count for or against you (mostly everybody got 40% or failed, my teachers have told me). They only did it that way to test how the students did, to know where to set the bar. My class (Class of 2007, being screwed over with these tests since 1999) is the first year to take the tests and have them count. It doesn't matter what score we get, it matters whether or not we pass, and on our transcript that's all it says. In another 3 years or so kids won't have to take the new and improved HSAs I had to suffer through, they'll be taking something new. And "improved".
The exams they give kids, at least in the states, are ridiculous. The HSAs consisted of 6 BCR(brief constructed responses) and about 2-4 ECR (extended constructed responses) and anywhere from 30-80 multiple choice. Every kid gets a different color test, which has different questions, so no 6 kids takes the same test, or gets tested on the same information. Does something seem wrong about that? Something wrong that I got 4 BCR, 3 ECRs, and 78 multiple choice, while the chick next to me got 6 BCRs and 32 multiple choice? But like I said, in another couple years this test'll be gone. So while the tests keep changing and the funding for schools keeps wavering, teachers are forced to teach nothing but what's on the tests, and not what we really should be learning.
As Mata said, education is just about how adaptable you are to new ideas, but when the teachers are more worried about whether or not they'll have chalk next year than one kid's struggle with factoring, how can we be expected to learn anything? Education these days consists of rushing kids by test material, without stopping along the way, and that's not the way it should be.
Wow, I think that got awfully off topic. It was just sort of my rant about Maryland school systems, sorry.

I don't see why some people are complaining about these MCAT wanna-be's when there are SATs, GCSEs and A levels (Hurray, no more O levels).

And of course you seem to forget the point in end of year exams, so that you can get set, so that you can work most productivly in your next year. If we didn't all smart people would be held back by dumb-asses.

But I disagree with HAVING to do GCSE English (which affects which University you go to, which affects what job you get etc.) as I sucked at it, just scraped an A.

So you see, we need tests to show people how great you are at everything. Without this, how will people know how stupid you are?

I'm not saying do away with tets. Far from it. I'm saying over-institutionalization has killed learning.

Amigo, I have been feeling the same way for years.

My favorite classes weren't "academic" classes but strangely I learned the most in them. In Gifted Studies and Humanities and Contemporary Literature Honors, I learned about the histories of various cultures throughout history as well as into the 20th century. In Cont. Lit., we read books, poems, essays and other stuff written over the last century that had actual value to them (Farenheit 451 and Anthem, baby). As my classmates were going insane over GPAs and test scores and other bullsh*t, I was looking at writers and thinking about how to expand my writing style and other important things.

As I entered college, from day one there was all this stress about majors and degrees and crap. I personally came to college to learn, not to get a diploma though that's on my "to do" list. I don't just want to go through the motions, get a piece of paper and get the hell out of there. I'd rather my mind expand, not contract.

My mother teaches school. She's pointed out to me that it's becoming more cookie-cutter and they're trying to shovel kids through instead of educating them. In order to save time, they structure the hell out of everything, thus killing the kids' desire to learn and making him/her just want to go through motions for tangible rewards.

I took an entire class just on the SATs and I too had to strain through the FCAT process. Standardized tests only measure how good you are at taking test. Spiffy's going through hell over state-mandated standardized tests. She's smart but has problems taking tests.

Well, my head's spinning from reading all THAT.

But one thing I will point out that I absolutely hate is how schools have to have a certain number of kids pass or else they won't get funding, or schools getting more money because the kids scored higher than others on their tests. Shouldn't it be the opposite way around? If the kids aren't learning, then shouldn't more money be given to get them better teachers, books, etc.?

And I agree that *way* too much emphasis is put on standardized tests. Spitting back out information you scooped up from books is needed to a large extent, but there are more things that should be sharing that emphasis to be considered important in one's education.