Reply With Quote
Not the point.
You suggested that Skype was an appropriate subs ute for human interaction because it worked for you and your co-workers. Great. Children aren't adults, however, and school isn't a job.
Do you have an alternative solution besides throwing more money at the problem?
Not the point.
You suggested that Skype was an appropriate subs ute for human interaction because it worked for you and your co-workers. Great. Children aren't adults, however, and school isn't a job.
What's the connection? How does melioration of social inequities ensure mastery of curriculum?
So in other words, no.
If in your opinion the education system can't be fixed until the social and socioeconomic issues of the perpetual underclass are fixed then it won't ever be fixed. There are some things government just can't do.
@CF:
More, why have you made it a precondition of educational progress? The necessity isn't intuitive to me.
Anywhere you sit down can be a place of learning. Ask any rummy. One person can do it.They do serve a purpose, but REAL ATTENDANCE IS STILL COMPULSORY IF YOU ARE SERIOUS ABOUT LEARNING. dont doubt it for a minute.
At best, schools can serve as a model for breaking the cycle of poverty but they can't do it themselves....that takes caring parents with real jobs, with real pay and real benefits...and adult parenting education....
....nothing wrong with rewarding kids for hard-work in class, its a lesson so few get at home, plus it creates an incentive to work hard, and stay out of trouble....
It doesn't. There are more steps involved.
Furthermore, I don't particularly think that mastery of curriculum is as important as a genuine desire to learn.
I think that increased agency and increased efficacy in impoverished communities would, over time, lead to an increased understanding that not only are the members of that community capable of reaching higher levels than previously thought attainable, but that they are themselves in control of their level of progress. Education is valued within affluent communities because there is a clear understanding of the process/progression: I will do A, B, and C, and it will get me X, Y, and Z. However, when X, Y, and Z seem a completely unrealistic goal, there's absolutely no incentive to bother with A, B, and C.
I'm not sure it's realistic to expect most kids to ever appreciate education for the sake of education. If you can appeal to other interests through compe ion, money, peer pressure, etc., then I say go for it.
So Manny, your telling me the best thing about online degrees is that sometimes you can hide the fact that it is an online degree? You make my case for me.
The online material is the same as the material you get in class. BUT, you will not get the interaction. INTERACTION WITH FACULTY IS KEY. INTERACTION WITH FELLOW STUDENTS IS KEY. At a minimum you network, and gain references from profs.
and if your talking about setting up a virtual classroom, where all kids can interact, you are talking about serious $$$ on IT.
And what you fail to consider is that kids cant do this at home. kids need direction, oversight. you are still talking about all the same school facilities PLUS the massive state of the art network. $$$$.
And dont get me wrong, my wife is a scientist, and she would consider applicants with an online degree in hiring for lab analysts. But, though you might get a job working for her, it would be hard to get her job (laboratory manager) with an online degree. And dont think your transcript wont show an employer who is considering you for a management level position whether you attended in person or not.
last thing...nothing wrong with an online degree...they will advance some folks, and they definitley provide a person with more options.
But this is only an option for busy adults trying to raise their potential income levels.
BUT: The growth in online degrees does not equate to quality, it stems from profit: people are paying for it, so there is a market, and schools are offering it. that doesnt mean its the best product on the market.
This is absolutely true. but in order to learn, many students must learn how to learn.
I dont know that my kids will be expected to go to college honestly...the prices are going to be astronomical, and what you say is true...they can learn solo. BUT...there is a different type of learning that happens through the interaction that happens between students and students, students and teachers, even teachers and teachers. And that is what would get left out of our education system if we start teaching from the clouds. And that is no bueno.
You know as well as I do, you cant take the average kid and leave him with a geometry book and expect it to take any hold.
...forget about 'taking hold', most wouldn't do it....no accountability..no motivation...
I certainly DO remember learning Geometry sitting down at a table with my book and doing my homework problems every night.
That's not the way kids today learn....they need the social interaction..
Fully engaged parents can be a powerful thing.
Even then, it's less about the joy of learning than it is about the joy of pleasing your parents, or escaping punishment. My parents were very active in my education but it didn't make me love Algebra.
Oh, .
Hmm...I seem to have misunderstood at first. Agree to disagree, with this proviso: desire is crucially important, and can compensate for a lot of other shortcomings.
If you can change people's mindsets, maybe they might orient themselves differently toward their own goals.I think that increased agency and increased efficacy in impoverished communities would, over time, lead to an increased understanding that not only are the members of that community capable of reaching higher levels than previously thought attainable, but that they are themselves in control of their level of progress. Education is valued within affluent communities because there is a clear understanding of the process/progression: I will do A, B, and C, and it will get me X, Y, and Z. However, when X, Y, and Z seem a completely unrealistic goal, there's absolutely no incentive to bother with A, B, and C.
Seems like an indirect, if not bass-ackward approach to education, but I guess what some families presume, others must become acculturated to and be encouraged to value, by para-sociological commandos of social progress.
What any of that has to do with education, directly, frankly eludes me. Most people aren't going to be "into" it. Trying to fix that may be more wrong-headed than it is actually helpful, and really, it seems like a total sidebar to me. I can respect the ambition to drag everyone else along, Bodhisattva-like, but its not a realistic plan for education.
Desire, ability and application aren't democracies. Nor are the masteries for which they strive. There's nothing equal about any of it.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-16-2010 at 02:13 PM.
...but you learned Algebra, and hopefully used that to springboard to trig or Cal...it takes years for a teacher to learn to foster a love for Algebra or math, unfortunately, these teachers possess work ethic/academic success levels that are also valuable in business too...in the 7 years of math you take you may be lucky to have 1 or 2 teachers that have the needed experience and curriculum to make math interesting and foster a love for Algebra...especially in these days of standardized testing..Even then, it's less about the joy of learning than it is about the joy of pleasing your parents, or escaping punishment. My parents were very active in my education but it didn't make me love Algebra.
It depends on the kid. I think I acknowledge that. Schools ought not to be geared to average kids.
Well, no. Of course not. And that never goes away; you have to suffer through general ed in order to have fun with electives and major classes in college.
When education is important to a student and their family, though, it becomes easier to accept algebra (or history, or physics, or whatever else) as a necessary evil on the road to something bigger, rather than a sign that school is stupid and not worth the time or effort. I was always a nerdier student than many of my classmates growing up, but there were certainly times (especially my middle high school years) where I hated school, hated the time/focus it took away from my social life, and my grades dropped dramatically as a result. I stuck with it, though, because I was never able to escape what had been instilled in me (and genuinely believed by me) from a young age: that school was important and there was a reason I was doing it.
I'm not suggesting dragging anyone along with something they don't want to do so much as I am suggesting an overall paradigm shift in which, eventually, people drag themselves along of their own volition.Oh, .
Agree 100%.
If you can change people's mindsets, maybe they might orient themselves differently toward their own goals.
Seems like an indirect, if not bass-ackward approach to education, but I guess what some families presume, others must become acculturated to and be encouraged to value, by para-sociological commandos of social progress.
What any of that has to do with education, directly, frankly eludes me. Most people aren't going to be "into" it. Trying to fix that may be more wrong-headed than it is actually helpful, and really, it seems like a total sidebar to me. I can respect the ambition to drag everyone else along, Bodhisattva-like, but its not a realistic plan for education.
Desire, ability and application aren't democracies. Nor are the masteries for which they strive. There's nothing equal about any of it.
In short, I don't see any way to reform the education system in this country that doesn't either take generations to enact, or require that we willfully label an entire segment of the population to be beyond saving.
I agree with all of that, but what was instilled as the reason you were doing it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
