The Disconnect Between American 'Education' and Success

[Annie]

Anyone that quotes Tocqueville, I'm sure to agree with. Seriously, I think there is alot of truth in this. I've often argued that the American system is superior to the European, in that we do keep bashing our heads against walls, attempting to 'teach all'. No, it doesn't always work; combined with 'non tracked' classes, it slows the pace down, a lot. However, for someone of normal intelligence, there is always another chance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501131_pf.html

How We Dummies Succeed

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; A15

If you're looking for the action in education, forget the Ivy League. Talk instead to Anthony Zeiss, president of Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte. It has six campuses and 70,000 students taking classes in everything from remedial English to computer networking. With about 12 million students, the nation's 1,200 community colleges help answer this riddle: Why do Americans do so badly on international educational comparisons and yet support an advanced economy?

At this back-to-school moment, the riddle is worth pondering. Those dismal comparisons aren't new. In 1970, tests of high school seniors in seven industrial countries found that Americans ranked last in math and science. Today's young Americans sometimes do well on these international tests, but U.S. rankings drop as students get older. Here's a 2003 study of 15-year-olds in 39 countries: In math, 23 countries did better; in science, 18. Or consider a 2003 study of adults 16 to 65 in six advanced nations: Americans ranked fifth in both literacy and math.

In trying to explain the riddle, let me offer a distinction between the U.S. school system and the American learning system .

The school system is what most people think of as "education." It consists of 125,000 elementary and high schools and 2,500 four-year colleges and universities. It has strengths (major research universities) and weaknesses -- notably, lax standards. One reason that U.S. students rank low globally is that many don't work hard. In 2002, 56 percent of high school sophomores did less than an hour of homework a night.

The American learning system is more complex. It's mostly post-high school and, aside from traditional colleges and universities, includes the following: community colleges; for-profit institutes and colleges; adult extension courses; online and computer-based courses; formal and informal job training; self-help books. To take a well-known example: The for-profit University of Phoenix started in 1976 to offer workers a chance to finish their college degrees. Now it has about 300,000 students (half taking online courses and half attending classes in 163 U.S. locations). The average starting age: 34.

The American learning system has, I think, two big virtues.

First, it provides second chances. It tries to teach people when they're motivated to learn -- which isn't always when they're in high school or starting college. People become motivated later for many reasons, including maturity, marriage, mortgages and crummy jobs. These people aren't shut out. They can mix work, school and training. A third of community college students are over 30. For those going to traditional colleges, there's huge flexibility to change and find a better fit. A fifth of those who start four-year colleges and get degrees finish at a different school, reports Clifford Adelman of the Education Department. Average completion time is five years; many take longer.

Second, it's job-oriented. Community colleges provide training for local firms and offer courses to satisfy market needs. Degrees in geographic information systems (the use of global positioning satellites) are new. There's been an explosion in master's degrees -- most of them work-oriented. From 1971 to 2004, MBAs are up 426 percent, public administration degrees, 262 percent, and health degrees, 743 percent. About a quarter of college graduates now get a master's. Many self-help books are for work -- say, "Excel for Dummies." There are about 150 million copies of the "For Dummies" series in print.

Up to a point, you can complain that this system is hugely wasteful. We're often teaching kids in college what they should have learned in high school -- and in graduate school what they might have learned in college. Some of the enthusiasm for more degrees is crass credentialism. Some trade schools prey cynically on students' hopes and spawn disappointment. But these legitimate objections miss the larger point: The American learning system accommodates people's ambitions and energies -- when they emerge -- and helps compensate for some of the defects of the school system.

In Charlotte, about 70 percent of the recent high school graduates at Central Piedmont Community College need remedial work in English or math. Zeiss thinks his college often succeeds where high schools fail. Why? High school graduates "go out in the world and see they have no skills," he says. "They're more motivated." The mixing of older and younger students also helps; the older students are more serious and focused.

This fragmented and mostly unplanned learning system is a messy mix of government programs and private business. In some ways it compares favorably to other countries' more controlled governmental systems. Of course, that isn't an excuse for not trying to improve our schools. We would certainly be better off if more students performed better. Nor should it inspire complacency. "Other countries are picking up these models of community colleges and online learning," says Chester E. Finn Jr. of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a research group.

But the American learning system partially explains how a society of certified dummies consistently outperforms the test scores. Workers and companies develop new skills as the economy evolves. The knowledge that is favored (specialized and geared to specific jobs) often doesn't show up on international comparisons that involve general reading and math skills. As early as the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans are addicted to practical, not abstract, knowledge. That's still true.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As early as the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans are addicted to practical, not abstract, knowledge. That's still true.

Hence our distain (see below) for the smarty-pants European-oriented Leftists who want to design society from their lame "ivory towers".

:tongue1:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No. Our schools suck ass. All those secondary systems are so often used because people must make up for their shit education.

Students should be separated based on ability and realistic goals set for each level. I know this would reveal the politically incorrect truths everyone wishes to ignore, but would we rather see our nation go down the shitter? Would we rather see our kids in night school while working retail to try and catch up to Indians coming straight into the fortune 500s right off the boat? Because discipline was too hard, because political correctness has so polluted academic discourse in america that logic and thinking are considered white oppression?

Say no to the insanity.

 

[5stringJeff]

Students should be separated based on ability and realistic goals set for each level.

Spoken in the true spirit of Marx and Lenin, KomЯade ЯШA!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Spoken in the true spirit of Marx and Lenin, KomЯade ЯШA!

How is this like marx and lenin?

I'm saying let the advanced kids excel, instead of shackling them forever to the incapable amongst us. Our current system is guaranteeing we achieve the lowest possible common denominator, and hamstringing our nation.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Spoken in the true spirit of Marx and Lenin, KomЯade ЯШA!

Spoken like a true McCarthy-ist. Does it make more sense to educate kids according to their individual ability to retain the information or does it make more sense to lump them all together so that the slow ones keep the class speed set at status quo? I don't agree with the racial undertones of the statement, but you should atleast give credit where it's due.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Spoken like a true McCarthy-ist. Does it make more sense to educate kids according to their individual ability to retain the information or does it make more sense to lump them all together so that the slow ones keep the class speed set at status quo? I don't agree with the racial undertones of the statement, but you should atleast give credit where it's due.

The racial aspect is precisely why we don't do this. It would LOOK BAD. Therefore our nation must face ruin, for political correctness.

 

[Said1]

Spoken in the true spirit of Marx and Lenin, KomЯade ЯШA!

That's how it's done here. Starting in gr.1 they're seperated in the class (not all schools do this, but most give gifted and advanced children other work to do while the rest of the class sticks with the regular ciriculum). Grades 7-8 don't practice this often, then 9-12 is divided in three - basic, general and advanced. There are some gifted programs in high schools but not all. Ontario used have gr. 13 which counted as 1 year of unversity. :huh:

 

[Hobbit]

Spoken in the true spirit of Marx and Lenin, KomЯade ЯШA!

Actually, 'Я' is pronounced the exact same as the German 'ja,' and 'Ш' is prounounced 'sh.'

If you want to get him, call him 'товарищ.' It means 'comrade.' Or call him 'пкm,' which is the abbreviation for 'right wing avenger' in Pyccки.

 

[5stringJeff]

As to the separation of kids based on ability, it's not that I'm against it, but you really have to tread carefully. How will you separate kids out? Can kids who at first don't perform well, but later show greater academic abilities, be able to move between groups? It's too easy to pigeonhole kids into the "smart" and "dumb" groups, decide their futures for them, and call it a success. That's my only concern.

Hobbit: thanks for the Russian lesson.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

As to the separation of kids based on ability, it's not that I'm against it, but you really have to tread carefully. How will you separate kids out? Can kids who at first don't perform well, but later show greater academic abilities, be able to move between groups? It's too easy to pigeonhole kids into the "smart" and "dumb" groups, decide their futures for them, and call it a success. That's my only concern.

Hobbit: thanks for the Russian lesson.

No. Really you just didn't read closely and wanted to jump on me due to your envy.

Of course people could move between groups. And concern for labels is pc bullshit.

 

[5stringJeff]

No. Really you just didn't read closely and wanted to jump on me due to your envy.

Wow. You nailed it. I lie awake at night with feelings of inferiority.

Of course people could move between groups. And concern for labels is pc bullshit.

Not so fast. My wife's school district did this kind of thing, and once you started 9th grade and you were assigned your "track," that was it. No changing, no proving that you are smart enough to hack it, no nothing.

 

[Trigg]

That's how it's done here. Starting in gr.1 they're seperated in the class (not all schools do this, but most give gifted and advanced children other work to do while the rest of the class sticks with the regular ciriculum). Grades 7-8 don't practice this often, then 9-12 is divided in three - basic, general and advanced. There are some gifted programs in high schools but not all. Ontario used have gr. 13 which counted as 1 year of unversity. :huh:

In Finland at 15 they take a test to determine if they'll go to highschool or a trade school.

My son is going to visit my sister next summer and she called today to ask if he wanted to take part in a job shadowing program working in a potato chip factory. It's on of the "careers" the trade school kids would be trained for.

Compairing our schools to European ones is like apples and oranges. The kids in highschool in Europe are there because they want to be not because they're forced to be.

 

[Nienna]

I like the idea behind the old-fashioned one-room schools. Kids accomplished their lessons. If they passed, they moved onto the next lesson. If they failed, they repeated the lesson. Each kid at his own pace. It shouldn't be about "tracking"; it should be about ability to comprehend and retain material.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wow. You nailed it. I lie awake at night with feelings of inferiority.



Not so fast. My wife's school district did this kind of thing, and once you started 9th grade and you were assigned your "track," that was it. No changing, no proving that you are smart enough to hack it, no nothing.

YEah. That was a bs way to do it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In Finland at 15 they take a test to determine if they'll go to highschool or a trade school.

My son is going to visit my sister next summer and she called today to ask if he wanted to take part in a job shadowing program working in a potato chip factory. It's on of the "careers" the trade school kids would be trained for.

Compairing our schools to European ones is like apples and oranges. The kids in highschool in Europe are there because they want to be not because they're forced to be.

This post intrigued me, because I have nearly a split mind on the issue. Two separate lines of dialogue spring to mind to illustrate the difference in viewpoints.

"Are you saying I can never be better than a chip salter?"

"Are you saying I have a guaranteed job for life, as a chip salter? SWEET!"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This post intrigued me, because I have nearly a split mind on the issue. Two separate lines of dialogue spring to mind to illustrate the difference in viewpoints.

"Are you saying I can never be better than a chip salter?"

"Are you saying I have a guaranteed job for life, as a chip salter? SWEET!"

And the American take on both questions is

:tongue1:

 

[Said1]

As to the separation of kids based on ability, it's not that I'm against it, but you really have to tread carefully. How will you separate kids out? Can kids who at first don't perform well, but later show greater academic abilities, be able to move between groups? It's too easy to pigeonhole kids into the "smart" and "dumb" groups, decide their futures for them, and call it a success. That's my only concern.

Hobbit: thanks for the Russian lesson.

I was able too. With the excpetion of english,I was in regular classes until 11-12 then took all advanced classes. I could have gone that route earlier, but I was too lazy. I suppose it's both ability and desire.

Also, in gr. 1 my daughter was behind the rest of the class in reading. With help, she caught up and surpassed the rest of the students. She was given other work or was asked to help other kids instead of sticking with the regular lesson plans most of the time.

 

[Unkotare]

.