Is America's failing education system going to impact our economy in 10 years' time?

[Bynary Fission]

America's education system is a failure. More kids than ever are getting an inadequate education. Many don't get good grades. And teachers are failing to do their jobs.
Granted, it's not all bad. Some teachers are good, and many schools are at least half-way decent to excellent. But that is not the overwhelming majority, sadly. In Nevada here, we rank 47th in the nation. I have seen the horror in my schools. It's in an appalling state. Most students don't know jack, and they never seem to remember what they've learned. I fear that America will lack enough educated people to run the country in time if things do not improve.
Recently in California, which has much better schools than here, had to cut education's funding by 10%, as they are in a fiscal crisis there. This does not bode well for nearly 1/10th of America's kids who reside there, which only confirms what may be happening.

What are your opinions on this? :? I believe if America does not improve, we will drive the nails deeper into our own coffin. I am trying to keep myself out of this by educating myself and training my brain. Sadly, many other kids are not that way. They like to hang out, talk, and some drink and smoke. Many procrastinate and don't do their homework often. Granted, not all kids are like this. Some have avoided the bandwagon, and are independent-minded individuals with a bright future ahead of them. I am crossing my fingers and hoping that things will improve. :cry:


~Bynary Fission

[Arch0wl_MMS]

Yes. Substantially. The most obvious reason I can see is from political tension created by unequal distribution of education.

It's easy to ask how this will impact our economy. Instead, you should be asking: what will you do to change it?

[Bynary Fission]

Good question to ask. As of now, all I can do is urge others to take charge of their life and education and don't become part of the statistics that measures who uses welfare and feeds off of the already faltering government. I praise those who are making something of themselves.



~Bynary Fission

[lord_carbo]

The wages of students who have graduated college have been on the rise while for non-college graduates it has nearly flat-lined. While our public schools are failing, American colleges are still the best in the world, both as research centers* and educational institutes.

Low wage workers do little for the economy that others in other countries cannot, and the truth is, America's colleges are great. A lot of low wage, high school graduates are probably against globalization and more immigration, with high wage college graduates not minding it. Just an estimation, but a g od one. It's not because college graduates are "smarter," but when you assume people are acting in their self-interest, it's obvious that low-wage workers would want a bit of protectionism. High wage workers have only to gain from emigration. It means cheaper prices when they're very unlikely to lose their job. Harford briefly explains this in the first chapter of his easy to read book, The Undercover Economist.

It's also a fallacy to assume that non-college kids are only making less because they didn't go to college. The type of mentality that propels one into college can contribute significantly.

A failing education system would certainly impact the economy. Today with so much globalization, the demand for a good education that will secure a future job is high. When other countries catch up in educational quality (arguably they've already exceeded ours) and economic power (that will take lots of time), then corporations will want those smarter kids.

Lots of kids in America are stupid. But a lot are also really ambitious. I doubt that you'll have trouble getting into a decent college.



* Note that colleges are usually graded by their research centers quality. If not, then by other stupid means such as the quantity of inefficient bulky books in a university library. Going to Harvard does not ensure a top quality education, especially since you will likely not have the teachers that make Harvard noteworthy because they are researching too much or they are only focusing on graduate courses. Harvard is ranked number one as a research facility. Its ability to educate, for all we know, could be mediocre! In all honesty, citing the quality of an educational center is impossible and attempts detract from quality because no objective method can be made yet schools should adhere to these grading systems to make their colleges seem best. Attempts such as counting the number of books in a library discourage electronic databases which are efficient and cheaper. And attempts to hold to stupid standards may compromise education (University of Colorado's Law School: greatest example in the world). I bull****ted that American colleges are the best for education because it's impossible to say; I just assume so.

[dore]

I honestly believe the problem is in our dropout age. It seems (at least here in North Carolina) that it becomes more difficult to drop out every year, and it also seems that the "general population" gets dumber and dumber every year. I think we should let kids drop out early; if all they want to do with life is to work in a blue collar job or a specialized business owned by their parents, I don't see what right the state has to confine them to 13 years of education. Some people just aren't ambitious, and their lack of ambition brings the school, overall, down. Let the kids who want to learn learn, but don't force those that don't want to.

[Crashfan3]

The school I go to started raising the standards gradually in 1995, because the failure/dropout rate was at a stunning 33.2%. Now Algebra II is required to graduate, and some Calculus is strongly recommended. The failure rate has improved somewhat by making some pupils work harder, but then there are the few who aren't exactly the brightest crayon in the box, that or they just don't care. There are a lot of those here so the failure rate is still high, so the schools continues to raise the standards. As they continue to do this, those kids at the "average" level who are really trying are going to fail.

But the educational system is not completely to blame. Some kids come home with D's and F's, and their parents don't care, so the kid goes up to his room and plays his X-Box all day and completely ignores the fact that he's got a science report due the next day. Then when he's 30 years old, he complains because he's still working the Drive-Thru, or he's unemployed.
Part of the reason many of America's employees are from third-world foreign countries such as Mexico or India, is because those people live in horrible conditions and are told about a "miraculous place" called America. So these people bust their asses to get an education and get to American and WORK HARD. And then the Americans who were lazy in their school days whine and complain because every time they call technical support, they get this Arabic person that they can't understand. Or that the job they worked for 10 years to get was simply handed to some foreigner. That's because the foreigner worked harder, and the leader of the corporation wants HARD WORKING PEOPLE.

So, in my opinion, it's not the general portion of America's schools, it's the general portion of Americans.

[devonin]

I honestly believe the problem is in our dropout age. It seems (at least here in North Carolina) that it becomes more difficult to drop out every year, and it also seems that the "general population" gets dumber and dumber every year. I think we should let kids drop out early; if all they want to do with life is to work in a blue collar job or a specialized business owned by their parents, I don't see what right the state has to confine them to 13 years of education. Some people just aren't ambitious, and their lack of ambition brings the school, overall, down. Let the kids who want to learn learn, but don't force those that don't want to.

If the parents were required to consent to it if the kid was under a certain age, I'd be more inclined to think this was a good idea. If you could just drop out any time after 14 or 15 years old, a -very- large number of kids would be dropping out because they don't -like- school, not because they've made the educated and reasoned decision that what they want from life doesn't require having graduated.

Edit: I actually had a really interesting conversation with another friend of mine the other day while sitting in line waiting for my student loan money (hehe) and one of the things we saw as a major issue with the education system, is the insistance that you -MUST- complete each leg of the system in a certain amount of time.

If we rigged up highschool to be more like the way college works: You can sign up for any number of 1-X (depends how your school sets up its years, here it is 1-5 per semester) courses, and take as long as you like to actually get through your degree. If a kid could get a part time job, work, make money, gain experience, and still have time for 1 or 2 courses a semester of highschool, they can work at their own pace, as they are comfortable. They'd do this because even though they are working, it isn't really until you get out into the working world that you properly appreciate how much of a benefit those classes can be.

You'd also have the advantage of being able to go and recieve credit for the classes in fields you were interested in, without having to do everything whether you wanted to or not, and we'd create an entire subset of middling-skilled workers. Someone who'se done grade 9-12 math and physics is more qualified than a dropout, even if they are less qualified than a graduate, but in a job that only wants math and physics, I'd figure on that being enough to get them a much better shot at the job.

[Bynary Fission]

Well for these reasons, I am taking an online high school, where I can speed up my education, graduate faster, not deal with stupid kids and teachers, and work at my own pace. It's a godsend. I am taking tons of honors classes, I may clep some classes, and graduate at 15 or 16. Great stuff. I am not so concerned about what college I get into as the quality of education I will receive. I know some C++ and am learning more all the time. I am building skills with 3D programs. I will create my own music. I intend to have all the skills necessary to excel in video game programming by the time I am done with high school. :-)


~Bynary Fission

P.S Kids should not legally be able to get a job until they're 18 or they've graduated, and the dropout age should be raised to 18. This may alleviate some of the problem, because you gotta go to school or you can't get that summer job you've always wanted, and were willing to ditch school for it.

[devonin]

There are so many jobs that require absolutely no education or even particular training to do that are nevertheless vital jobs that need doing for the society to function properly, and to forbid anyone from working until 18, and forcing everyone to stay in school until 18....

If anything, I'd think it should be mandatory -TO- have a part time job of some sort before 18, rather than forbidding it. I mean, you can get a social insurance number at 14? Give or take? From that point on, you are legally allowed to work at jobs that aren't paper routes and babysitting, and frankly, I see nothing but benefit from making it so you have to find some kind of employment by 15 or 16.

[Bynary Fission]

Well that's the problem, it's a double-edged sword. Some people who are doing school full-time or even more than that might not be able to get a job. With my schedule, I couldn't. But if I didn't, then what? Would it be fair to sacrifice part of my education for a job?

The problem is, a job frequently gets in the way of school. So if it was mandatory, I'm sure we'd see a precipitous drop in failure/dropout rates for that required job. Either way, schools will always have dropouts. No matter what laws are enacted and no matter how good a school is. But if the child were to get the help he needs (And sadly, many schools are understaffed and underfunded), then maybe the situation would improve.

[lord_carbo]

There are so many jobs that require absolutely no education or even particular training to do that are nevertheless vital jobs that need doing for the society to function properly, and to forbid anyone from working until 18, and forcing everyone to stay in school until 18....

If anything, I'd think it should be mandatory -TO- have a part time job of some sort before 18, rather than forbidding it. I mean, you can get a social insurance number at 14? Give or take? From that point on, you are legally allowed to work at jobs that aren't paper routes and babysitting, and frankly, I see nothing but benefit from making it so you have to find some kind of employment by 15 or 16.
Mandates are absolutely cruel things.

First of all, many places are reluctant to actually hire teenagers. Your thinking is one dimensional in that aspect. Mainly, there's a surplus of untapped labor because of minimum wage. No worthwhile economist in the world believes that minimum wage has no negative effect on employment. It would be nearly impossible to create enough jobs with it there. If we got rid of minimum wage, it still would not be too long until the market hits equilibrium--few teenagers would subject themselves to an hour of hard work for a mere $4.

Secondly you're completely disregarding trade-offs as a result of scarcity. I am a part of two huge extracurricular clubs: robotics and drama. They take up a heaping portion of my schedule on top of homework and school. Many kids in drama are also a part of band, which takes up just as much time as my robotics does. If I were required to get a job, I would have to face an unfair trade-off because at this point in my life I really don't care for a job in the first place. That's a big reason why I don't have one.

What you're proposing is that you know how people should be spending their time. Instead of doing one thing, they should be doing another. Micromanagement of the economy is absurd. How one's time "should" be spent is a question that need not be left to others, since those who directly receive the benefits know better than anyone else how they should spend their time--and have the most incentives to balance their time to their preferences and to increase their intrinsic and extrinsic daily marginal output.

If the parents were required to consent to it if the kid was under a certain age, I'd be more inclined to think this was a good idea. If you could just drop out any time after 14 or 15 years old, a -very- large number of kids would be dropping out because they don't -like- school, not because they've made the educated and reasoned decision that what they want from life doesn't require having graduated.
Then we as teachers and parents would start emphasizing the importance of education in the first place. When your mom and dad don't nearly disown you for dropping out of school, well then it's highly unlikely you're in an environment where you're going to eventually realize you should care about your education. And that's fine to me. If kids don't want to learn, give me those tax-supported resources. I obviously want them more than those kids do.

Why should we protect ourselves from ourself? When a kid learns from experience that they should be in school and is given a personal incentive to keep being educated, then more gets done. So all I ask is that we let kids **** up.

[tsugomaru]

Well that's the problem, it's a double-edged sword. Some people who are doing school full-time or even more than that might not be able to get a job. With my schedule, I couldn't. But if I didn't, then what? Would it be fair to sacrifice part of my education for a job?

The problem is, a job frequently gets in the way of school. So if it was mandatory, I'm sure we'd see a precipitous drop in failure/dropout rates for that required job. Either way, schools will always have dropouts. No matter what laws are enacted and no matter how good a school is. But if the child were to get the help he needs (And sadly, many schools are understaffed and underfunded), then maybe the situation would improve.

You make it seem like a job is bad for a student. For a student to do well in school, they need to have a motivation to do well and this motivation can vary from a wide range of reasons. Your reason to do well in school is because you want to be able to program computer games and because of self-interest. This is not necessarily the same reason for everyone.

My old chemistry teacher said that getting a job while taking school was the most beneficial thing that occurred in his education. Before, he didn't appreciate school because he didn't know what it could do for you and as such, he didn't want to learn. However, when he found a job at McDonalds, he realized he wanted to get an education and do well in school so he would never end up having to take orders from a person who was in a sense, dumber than he was.

Also, it appears that you come from a family who does not appear to have financial issues. You probably have a family that is willing to pay or can pay your education. Not everyone's families are like that. You have the option of focusing all your time towards your education and the fact that you don't want a job is your decision. However, not every kid has that option.

~Tsugomaru

[Bynary Fission]

I understand. I am not trying to make it sound bad. I said that it was a double edged sword, and it can be hindering to some people, but beneficial for others. Some need a job. Others have to dedicate themselves to school and can't get one. Each person has an individual set of needs, and achieving those needs naturally differs.


And who knows, I may try to squeeze a job in sometime soon. :razz:




~Bynary Fission

Edit: Not have financial issues? My families has been from below middle class to poor my whole life. It's still that way. I've had this same computer since 2002, and my mom has had hers since 2003. They get used very heavily, and are in need of upgrades that we can't afford.

[tsugomaru]

Alright, I'm sorry about the personal attack, but I was trying to make a point about the situations of people.

~Tsugomaru

[jewpinthethird]

I believe the major failure in the public education system of the United States is the assumption that all high school students are college-bound. It assumes that all students are created equally, and thus, our public school system is a leveled playing field. However, there are a lot of other factors that contribute to why a student might drop-out: socio-economic standing, immigration status, cultural upbringing, parental investment, as well as other external factors such as: the influence of friends, drugs, and alcohol.

I agree with Carbo, our colleges are some of the best in the world. There's a reason it is competitive to get into a good college, because not everybody is an high school drop out. Drop outs still represent a minority. And dropping out is by no means the end of someone's scholastic career.

I had a few friends that actually tested out of high school (since the exit exam is 8th grade material) and continued their education at a local community college, thus giving them a year advantage over their classmates like me who chose to stay in high school.

So, while I agree our education system could be better, it is by no means a bad system (well, No Child Left Behind is a horrible system, but I honestly can't speak from personal experience as I graduated before it was utilized.) I know the California states standards allowed for a lot of freedom in the classroom, so long as we met the requirements set forth by the state. And I feel like I got a very good education at my public high school.

I apologize, this post was kind of all over the place.

[Bynary Fission]

@tsugamaru: Thanks. I do understand what point you were making. Some people do need to get a job. Just not everybody. ;).

Jewpin has a point. People make school try to be a one-size-fit-all type of thing. It can't be. Now I speak from a tiny minority of the population that NEEDS personalized education. I have autism, and while I do quite well in the public education system, doing it my way increases my output and performance ten-fold. Sometimes, I even think public school hinders me. Most kids with my condition do horribly in public school, and many suffer. I know this from the books I've read and from personal experience. Some students just need something different, and not just the one-size-fits-all curriculum. This can be a result of a whole host of reasons, and I am not privy to say what they are, as most are probably personal and tailored to each individual.

Dropouts are the minority, but with the education system lagging more and more, the number of kids who can't get a good education are rising. Tuition prices are also on the rise, and this does not help the situation.



~Bynary Fission

[lord_carbo]

I agree with Carbo, our colleges are some of the best in the world. There's a reason it is competitive to get into a good college, because not everybody is an high school drop out.
To add, the competition makes it so most of the time, the best go to the best colleges. Public schools operate on geographical monopolies. It's a "tough luck" situation bound by the area you live in. You get a cultural gradient in public schools: the smartest and the dumbest available.

This is unless you apply to the limited selection of private schooling available. It's not like you can send your kid halfway across the country to attend the "best private school in America" or something like that. And that's where our colleges do good and it's competitive. Many students move all over the place to go to college. The market becomes national. People outside of major cities are usually subject to an oligopoly of private education.

I agree that public schools tend toward a one-size-fits-all thing and it's a problem that will certainly affect us in the future. The question is, what's the solution? Encourage diverse curricula? Vouchers? Anything else?

[Bynary Fission]

Personalized curricula is not feasible, you know that. But splitting up classes into different levels and sizes would be beneficial. You would need more teachers, yes. It would not be something that could be done overnight. But some high-end schools should have such a program, as it is advantageous to those who do not learn quickly, or learn much faster. It's like a PC. If you leave it as is, then you only get so much performance out of it. But if you overclock it, then you get a lot more performance. See my analogy? Kids who are put in programs tailored to their needs will be able to maximize output. However, our government

1. Is a fascist, almost kleptocratic monster that invades our lives and serves themselves at our expense
2. Won't help hire new teachers
3. Harms us with every program they pass (See No Child Left Behind and Zero Tolerance Policy. I call it the Zero Intelligence Policy and Leave All Children Behind Policy.)

While that will probably not be achieved soon, if ever, we need to make the best of what we have. We should certainly try and make school less of a one-size-fits-all educational facility and more diversified, so kids who need help can be helped, and those who are advanced can get more advanced classes, and so forth.



~Bynary Fission

[Dark Ronin]

America’s failing education system? I really don’t see it as failing at all. I understand that I really only know how my area works, but the curricula at every school in my area is constantly getting more and more difficult with each year. The class I graduated had the highest percentage of students to enter college and do well. It is possible that we are a statistical anomaly but I haven’t seen any evidence of it. Besides nearly every nation has students who would rather go to school here. I do know that Japan has exceptionally high standards, but we are still top notch. People from across the globe come here to take classes in our colleges.

Even if our educational systems were failing it wouldn’t be the schools fault. It would be our fault. Teaching is one of the easiest fields to get into. You can take all the simple remedial classes just barely pass with a D- and still become a teacher without much work at all. Many teachers I know were among the bottom 20% of their high school classes. Nearly anyone who does well goes into the higher paying jobs. Sure some have a passion for teaching and some of the people in the lower 20% pick it up in college, but that doesn’t change the facts. Perhaps if teachers were paid better? College professors at places like Harvard are paid well, while other schools that no one has heard of have very poorly paid professors, who are generally not as good.

Another big problem would be the students. Schools are very prone to violence, and slacking is the “cool” thing to do. Its part of our culture. Japan doesn’t have nearly any of the same problems we do in their schools. But culture isn’t easily changed, of course that means it couldn’t have changed much in the past, so if our culture hasn’t changed it couldn’t be the reason for any of the problems yet its still the only excuse I can come up with. I would love to see a link to some sort of statistics on the matter.

[Bynary Fission]

Google "Is America's education system failing?" without the quotes. Out of the first 20 that came up, nearly every link provided said it was failing. A few didn't or led to something else, like Wikipedia. If that many links supports my answer, then obviously something is seriously wrong. I've seen for myself what both public AND private schools are like. And boy, is there a difference! I didn't get to be in a private high school (I'm in 9th grade anyways), so I can't comment on it. But what I did experience in middle school, elementary school, and kindergarten in both types of schools was vastly different. There IS something going on...I would almost say the school system is maligned...from a twisted government that tries to control it.

The colleges are far better, yes. I certainly agree with the notion that they are some of the world's best. But guess what? They aren't funded or controlled by the government. Surprise, surprise. They are independently funded, and thus they get to choose their own curricula and methods of teaching. Look what it brings. They are some of the world's best colleges and universities, those that countless people try to get into each year. Notice a correlation? Government funded: Crappy. Independently funded: Fabulous.


~Bynary Fission

[jewpinthethird]

I agree that public schools tend toward a one-size-fits-all thing and it's a problem that will certainly affect us in the future. The question is, what's the solution? Encourage diverse curricula? Vouchers? Anything else?

Well, I don't think there is an easy solution. I am against vouchers because I don't believe schools should be run like businesses and voucher programs are abused by those who already have a means to pay for private school. Also, vouchers invite the government into previously private institutions. I have nothing against private schools, but they should not receive any tax-payer money from the government.

I think a diverse curricula would be more beneficial. Such as providing various routes for students to graduate from high school. For example: receiving high school credit for vocational training, as well as greater cooperation between high schools and community colleges in providing an accelerated path of graduation.

Unfortunately, the way I see it, publics schools are being run like businesses due to a lack in funds. As such, schools cut programs that don't make them money (languages, arts, music, sciences) in favor of those courses which students tested on: mainly math and English (the higher a school scores on standardized tests, the more money they receive). However, you do not see cuts in extracurricular programs like football...because football games are a large source of revenue for schools despite the fact that it has nothing to do with education.

So what am I saying? Increase funding for public education. Teachers are worn thin as it is: over-sized class rooms, outdated material, and low pay do not make a good education system. We are robbing children of a decent education because this administration (and other state governments) don't see the importance of an well-educated majority. Now, I'm not conspiracy theorist, but I'd be really wary of a government that spends more money on starting wars than it does educating its children.

[Kilroy_x]

I am against vouchers because I don't believe schools should be run like businesses

Why?

and voucher programs are abused by those who already have a means to pay for private school.

How?

Also, vouchers invite the government into previously private institutions.

How?

I have nothing against private schools, but they should not receive any tax-payer money from the government.

Why?

I think a diverse curricula would be more beneficial. Such as providing various routes for students to graduate from high school. For example: receiving high school credit for vocational training, as well as greater cooperation between high schools and community colleges in providing an accelerated path of graduation.

The two things aren't exclusive.

Unfortunately, the way I see it, publics schools are being run like businesses due to a lack in funds. As such, schools cut programs that don't make them money (languages, arts, music, sciences) in favor of those courses which students tested on: mainly math and English (the higher a school scores on standardized tests, the more money they receive). However, you do not see cuts in extracurricular programs like football...because football games are a large source of revenue for schools despite the fact that it has nothing to do with education.

Revenue will always be a factor. You're ignoring other factors which are controllable, like curriculum standards which artificially value Math and English to the point that an inordinate amount of funding needs to go to them.

So what am I saying? Increase funding for public education.

This won't do anything.

Teachers are worn thin as it is: over-sized class rooms, outdated material, and low pay do not make a good education system.

Do you think the countless countries which surpass us in education have small class sizes, the newest materials and high salaries? These things aren't significant. You need to look for your opinions somewhere other than the teacher's unions. If a teacher wants to complain about their sinecures then maybe they should look at the lifestyles of people who actually work for a living first.

We are robbing children of a decent education because this administration (and other state governments) don't see the importance of an well-educated majority.

A well educated majority is impossible. Our colleges are already filled with incompetent professors due to a surplus of graduate degrees brought on by the intervention of a well meaning government.

Half your statements sound meaningless and the other half baseless. Try fleshing them out. I hope for your sake that you can.

[lord_carbo]

@Jewp: The problem with giving more money to schools is that the money doesn't go to better education. Case in point: Kansas City. Billions more was given to the district, and grades didn't increase at all.

We pay twice as much adjusted for inflation than 30 years ago but grades have barely budged.

As Thomas Sowell says about college education and finances, "Very often the case if made to the legislature and the public that the students deserve a better education but, after the money is appropriated, most of the additional money may go to raise faculty salaries, reduce teaching loads, or finance more research projects." He observes that average joint costs are impossible to compute, but marginal costs are. And when they are computed, it's not very favorable. See, schools only have to do "well enough." There are no incentives to better than that because public schools do not depend on doing well to get money. This creates an inefficient use of resources. In the same chapter, he notes that before WWII, hundreds of black chemists were hired in the private industries, while every single major university hired none. They could do what was trendy at the time. The private institutes needed to get the best they could, and because black chemists were seldom hired by public institutes which didn't need to be efficient, the private institutes saw the economic advantages in hiring neglected yet talented black chemists. Even in an era filled with racism, affirmative action wasn't needed to hire these people, only incentives for profit. He says it clearly: "Discrimination entails costs on the discriminators." Now public institutes will tend to hire more than necessary due to affirmative action and its trendiness, and the costs are borne by others.

If you're against running schools like a business, then you may like Obama's plan (well, at least the part that doesn't call for more of the same): pay teachers much more based on their quality.

Many districts pay teachers the same amount. This perpetuates a "Market for Lemons," as explained by Nobel Prize-winning economist Akerlof--basically, there are less good teachers because the demands for good and bad teachers are the same due to "asymmetrical information," meaning that the administrators don't know (and because of monopoly power, don't care) who they are hiring and all teachers get paid the same anyway. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, Google it.) Well basically, if teachers could be graded somehow on their quality, they'd have an incentive to perform better. This is the same principle behind voucher programs, but on a much smaller scale, and on one that people like you could probably get behind.

Monopolies are always inefficient. Always.

A well educated majority is impossible. Our colleges are already filled with incompetent professors due to a surplus of graduate degrees brought on by the intervention of a well meaning government.
If you ever see Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies in a bookstore (the lovely book I was referencing earlier in this post), sit down, buy a cup of coffee, and read the chapter titled "Academic Facts and Fallacies." It will blow your mind. Summary of chapter: colleges behave stupidly, your professors suck, your colleges need to do worse to seem better, colleges are very profit motivated despite being "non-profit," your professors suck, Harvard and other elite colleges are overrated, nobody in the system really gives a **** about what is going on, and your professors really suck.

[Bynary Fission]

I say school needs to be made much harder, and punishments twice as severe. Kids today are immature, puerile, unappreciative brats who don't care about anything that they are given, which DOES include education. Their incorrigible attitude only compounds the issue. If kids were made to realize what they were doing wrong and punished for it should they knowingly break rules, they might shape up. MIGHT. I've seen countless kids sent to the dean's office and punished, only to be back in the class in no time doing the same old things, obviously not having learned anything.

I do feel bad for the teachers that are overworked and underpaid. Teachers deserve to be paid upwards of 100,000$ for the hardest positions, like college. Maybe, if students were shown how they hurt their teachers with their laziness and lack of work ethic, it may touch them enough to motivate them to work harder. But very few kids seem to truly understand how they feel. I feel for them.

If students were shown how they harm those around them (And not just teachers) with their attitudes, I think it would really make a change in them (Not to repeat what I just stated). I have seen what happens to overworked teachers, and it isn't pretty. Some choose not to care anymore. Others decide to become excessively lax, and others become rigid and severe. I've seen all three, and I feel bad when it happens, because I know that the teacher has endured so many years of hardship that they can't take it anymore.

For the kids that do care, they make the future brighter for America and for the world. Unfortunately, the world is running out of these children, who are being replaced by overweight, unintelligent slackers with complacent, care-free parents. :cry: Who knows what'll happen. It may suddenly turn around as things reach their climax, or it may continue to descend until the nation collapses. As more people are birthed, more intelligent people enter the world. But many more slackers are born alongside him.


~Bynary Fission

[lord_carbo]

Unfortunately compassion and caring only sounds good on paper. It works lousily in both theory and practice, however, because there are few incentives for schools to do better, for teachers to do better.

The notion that increases pay increases incentives for more qualified teachers to teach completely contradicts research and theory on asymmetrical information and--worse--on basic labor market theory: we'd have a surplus of laborers. Teachers are too vast in unmeasurable and unknown qualities to compare, and certainly more pay for all teachers will seldom encourage schools to make sure they're getting the best. This is arguably true for all workers but especially for teachers, where every single quality is crucial as teaching is an open, social profession and little to no prior experience is often held. It's an inefficient method that creates more problems than it solves because subsidized schools have no reason to protect themselves from this type of enormous overspending, which eventually just leads back to the low "equilibrium" quality. As stated in the Market for Lemons paper, you can never buy a good used car.

The notion that teachers deserve more money need not be true because the economy is a system for trades to operate--not a moral machine where people should determine the value of a voluntary trade in which teachers willingly subject themselves to the pay they get. Maybe teachers are getting underpaid. So? Then why do they insist on working? If anything, tenured and unionized teachers are given too many protections. It's the good teachers that aren't paid enough, and the bad teachers that are paid too much. Unions discourage stand-outs in the workplace and demand equal and "fair" wages. That's essentially what a union is: a big collection of people acting as one voice. But people aren't different.

[jecht3009046]

As a specific example supporting the statement that America's education is failing, the high school I recently graduated from has formed a new rule that teachers cannot, for any reason, assign a grade lower than 50% on any assignment. Reason being: Grades lower than 50% 'demotivate' kids. So far, only one teacher who happened to me my Government teacher (a really smart guy) has opposed the rule and has been stuck down quite severely by the school board.

As for the results of America's "failing" education, outsourcing jobs in the medical, science, and higher tech fields will continue to increase, along with insourcing of employees for jobs that cannot easily be outsourced.

A cause of that, a BS (Bachelor of Science) degree is already basically bs. If one doesn't pursue a Masters degree or higher in many similar fields, disappointment is surely in the near future.

[Bynary Fission]

As a specific example supporting the statement that America's education is failing, the high school I recently graduated from has formed a new rule that teachers cannot, for any reason, assign a grade lower than 50% on any assignment. Reason being: Grades lower than 50% 'demotivate' kids.

Lmfao. That's gotta be the stupidest thing thats ever been passed in a school. I hope the brain-dead morons that passed that rule drop dead. Literally. All they are doing is letting those kids get a free ride through school, and in turn that will destroy the education that they were originally motivated to receive. After all, you have to put almost no effort to pass. All you have to do is get 20% of the assignment correct to pass. What a joke.

As for the results of America's "failing" education, outsourcing jobs in the medical, science, and higher tech fields will continue to increase, along with insourcing of employees for jobs that cannot easily be outsourced.

A cause of that, a BS (Bachelor of Science) degree is already basically bs. If one doesn't pursue a Masters degree or higher in many similar fields, disappointment is surely in the near future.

Well regardless of what degree you get, some teachers don't do a good job no matter what. For some jobs, like teaching, a degree is only a measure of how much you learned in school. It doesn't measure how good of a teacher you are. Some teachers with a bachelor's degree do far better than their PhD counterparts.


Unfortunately compassion and caring only sounds good on paper. It works lousily in both theory and practice, however, because there are few incentives for schools to do better, for teachers to do better.

The notion that increases pay increases incentives for more qualified teachers to teach completely contradicts research and theory on asymmetrical information and--worse--on basic labor market theory: we'd have a surplus of laborers. Teachers are too vast in unmeasurable and unknown qualities to compare, and certainly more pay for all teachers will seldom encourage schools to make sure they're getting the best. This is arguably true for all workers but especially for teachers, where every single quality is crucial as teaching is an open, social profession and little to no prior experience is often held. It's an inefficient method that creates more problems than it solves because subsidized schools have no reason to protect themselves from this type of enormous overspending, which eventually just leads back to the low "equilibrium" quality. As stated in the Market for Lemons paper, you can never buy a good used car.

Well said. But I should have made myself more clear: while many teachers do deserve to be paid more, they should also be recognized for the efforts they are making. For the few bad apples in the pile, they need to have some of their pay docked. That money should either go to the teachers that deserve it, or it should be put back into the budget where it can be put to better use (At least I hope it will). The teachers who teach don't teach for the money. They want to make a difference in their student's lives. They want to help ensure that their future is secured, and that the student will follow what the teacher has taught them throughout their lives and apply it to themselves, so that they become a better individual. These teachers don't seek the monetary rewards alone; they seek and reap the moral and spiritual benefits as well. Teachers should be paid based on their ability to teach, yes. But making the salary a stable figure for most teachers is also a priority if we wish to pay our teachers fairly, and help reach equilibrium in that area.


The notion that teachers deserve more money need not be true because the economy is a system for trades to operate--not a moral machine where people should determine the value of a voluntary trade in which teachers willingly subject themselves to the pay they get. Maybe teachers are getting underpaid. So? Then why do they insist on working? If anything, tenured and unionized teachers are given too many protections. It's the good teachers that aren't paid enough, and the bad teachers that are paid too much. Unions discourage stand-outs in the workplace and demand equal and "fair" wages. That's essentially what a union is: a big collection of people acting as one voice. But people aren't different.

I know that. Teachers work for a reason, and I stated it well enough above. But it isn't fair that people who work in such a critically important job get so underpaid. Teachers are actually in extremely short supply in many areas, and in some places like New Jersey, the average teacher makes a six-figure income.


Maybe teachers are getting underpaid. So? Then why do they insist on working? If you were around teachers who were overworked and underpaid, and felt the emotional strain that they are consistently burdened with, I'm sure you would not have made that statement. To say that trivializes the issue. Being a teacher is not like being a nuclear physicist, or an engineer, or an architect. The people are the ones who make society run. Without them, society would collapse. And believe me, we don't have a lot of teachers in a LOT of places. A lot of people do not want to be a teacher because of it's low pay, they get treated badly by many of their students, and the job itself is often very hard. Now teachers are not in critically low supply, but it isn't an attractive job. I know pay is not determined by a job's moral significance. However, when they try to speak out, say, in a union, then it can just get them outright fired. It's despicable and morally depraved as to how these people are treated.

I think I have been going on too long in this post. To make my point, teachers are treated like garbage much of the time. They are underpaid and have to deal with a bucketload of kids everyday, many of which don't make their jobs easier. Some cannot handle it, and will stop giving kids any decent education. The students have a role in America's failing education. Some teachers play a part. And America itself does as well. This is a complex issue comprising of many layers. To fix the problem isn't easy, and there is no one solution to the crisis. But we can begin by taking government involvement out of schools, giving them adequate funding, treating our teachers better, and motivating kids. America needs to pay full attention to this matter, and action has been belated for too long.

P.S. lord_carlo, I think you meant to say "But people are different. :razz:

[tsugomaru]

College professors do not have to be good teachers, they are only required to teach in addition to the research they have to do. Teachers at schools have to attain a teaching degree and no doubt they will pick up a thing or two while attaining their degree.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

College professors do not have to be good teachers, they are only required to teach in addition to the research they have to do. Teachers at schools have to attain a teaching degree and no doubt they will pick up a thing or two while attaining their degree.

~Tsugomaru

That you don't need a B.Ed to teach at the college/university level seems a little ridiculous to me. Pretty much every really great professor I've had in university took the time to get a B.Ed so they could learn how to teach properly.

I've had some of the most brilliant teachers and professors you could ever want, and they can't teach worth a damn, so all that knowledge doesn't get passed on in a worthwhile way, and you don't learn enough.

My brother had a computer/tech teacher in highschool who used to work for NASA, guy knew just about all there was to know about his field, but because he never learned how to teach (This was back when computer teachers were an exception and didn't need a B.Ed [This was also far enugh back that the course was called "Lab 2000" probably with an exclamation mark]) he turned all kinds of kids right off of getting into technology fields.

[lord_carbo]

That you don't need a B.Ed to teach at the college/university level seems a little ridiculous to me. Pretty much every really great professor I've had in university took the time to get a B.Ed so they could learn how to teach properly.
Colleges don't have any market incentive to hire "really great professors" in terms of teaching. If there were, then that would be a de facto requirement by the market. Professors only need to provide good research, and nontenured professors who are popular with students often put too much emphasis on their teaching to be likable by whom they are hired. Nontenured professors too strict in their grading get bad reviews from students, leading them to be fired. The traits of an eventually tenured professor: grade inflation and lousy teaching. It's for these reason that for young teachers, the "teacher of the year" award is called "the kiss of death. They don't have enough time to create high quality lectures and provide the research required to get hired.

I've had some of the most brilliant teachers and professors you could ever want, and they can't teach worth a damn, so all that knowledge doesn't get passed on in a worthwhile way, and you don't learn enough.
I bet their brilliance translates into their research.

My brother had a computer/tech teacher in highschool who used to work for NASA, guy knew just about all there was to know about his field, but because he never learned how to teach (This was back when computer teachers were an exception and didn't need a B.Ed [This was also far enugh back that the course was called "Lab 2000" probably with an exclamation mark]) he turned all kinds of kids right off of getting into technology fields.
Well in that case there was simply a scarcity of supply.

[tsugomaru]

It seems ridiculous, but that's the reality. Some of the professors in the US might actually give a damn about teaching while others just won't put the extra effort into the subject they are suppose to teach. This just forces students to learn the material by themselves if they are serious about it.

~Tsugomaru

[RVL]

I say school needs to be made much harder, and punishments twice as severe. Kids today are immature, puerile, unappreciative brats who don't care about anything that they are given, which DOES include education. Their incorrigible attitude only compounds the issue. If kids were made to realize what they were doing wrong and punished for it should they knowingly break rules, they might shape up. MIGHT. I've seen countless kids sent to the dean's office and punished, only to be back in the class in no time doing the same old things, obviously not having learned anything.

It's not so much necessarily that school needs to be harder, the expectations should be higher. Smart people ARE having some trouble with honor classes, as well as mantaining an above average grade. I agree that punishments should be somewhat more severe; if you miss a lot of homework assignments, you should be subject to getting a zero on all of those late assignments for not even doing it in the first place. Now, I sometimes don't know what to do for my homework, and even if I write it down in the binder the teacher may not have clearly explained it.... That's the one and only reason why I would miss a homework assignment. I actually put some effort in my work.


I do feel bad for the teachers that are overworked and underpaid. Teachers deserve to be paid upwards of 100,000$ for the hardest positions, like college. Maybe, if students were shown how they hurt their teachers with their laziness and lack of work ethic, it may touch them enough to motivate them to work harder. But very few kids seem to truly understand how they feel. I feel for them.

I remember having the best math teacher of all time in my middle school 6th grade year, and we all had a discussion on how student behavior effects his career. If the students in class aren't paying attention or are not behaving properly, and achieve poor grades, he would get fired just because the kids were acting stupid.

For the kids that do care, they make the future brighter for America and for the world. Unfortunately, the world is running out of these children, who are being replaced by overweight, unintelligent slackers with complacent, care-free parents. :cry: Who knows what'll happen. It may suddenly turn around as things reach their climax, or it may continue to descend until the nation collapses. As more people are birthed, more intelligent people enter the world. But many more slackers are born alongside him.

Well, it's not necessarily 100% true that overweight people are dumb. Some are just overweight because they lack physical exercise.

However, I do agree America should cut down of morbidly obese people.

FYI: When I googled Is Americas education system failing I saw an article about how much better private schools were than public schools.

[Bynary Fission]

It's not so much necessarily that school needs to be harder, the expectations should be higher. Smart people ARE having some trouble with honor classes, as well as mantaining an above average grade. I agree that punishments should be somewhat more severe; if you miss a lot of homework assignments, you should be subject to getting a zero on all of those late assignments for not even doing it in the first place. Now, I sometimes don't know what to do for my homework, and even if I write it down in the binder the teacher may not have clearly explained it.... That's the one and only reason why I would miss a homework assignment. I actually put some effort in my work.

That's good. I hope you continue to do so. While raising expectations will encourage some students to work harder, many are completely unmotivated, and don't care whether they fail or not, regardless of expectations. Ultimately, it IS up the the student to decide whether he wants to get his education or not. But America's schools don't really help to motivate students anyways, so it is a double whammy in it's own right, with failures on both ends (For the most part, a few public schools really are good).


Well, it's not necessarily 100% true that overweight people are dumb. Some are just overweight because they lack physical exercise.

However, I do agree America should cut down of morbidly obese people.

FYI: When I googled Is Americas education system failing I saw an article about how much better private schools were than public schools.

I know not all overweight kids are dumb. I have spent most of my life slightly overweight (~5-10 pounds) and I'm very intelligent. Only recently did I lose those pounds. I now have a solid 16% body fat. But that's irrelevant. I was referring to the archetypal overweight, unmotivated slacker who typically isn't that bright. However, you are right. I should not use overweight kids as an example. My mistake.

Yes, private schools are often 10x better than their public counterparts, simply because they expect more out of a student, and they are better at motivating their students. I know this from experience. I went to a Christian private school in 5th and 6th grade in New York, and a private school in kindergarten. If you got < 72% on your assignments, it was an F. I always had straight As, as I am motivated to succeed and do well in life later on. but anyways, the schools do not have government intervention. The students there were brighter, more motivated, kinder, and the teacher was probably the absolute best I've ever seen. Too bad many people can't afford to send their students to private schools.

I've always thought that if the government were to either

A) Learn off of private schools in terms of education and motivation, or

B) Get the hell out of America's public schools

America's education system would not be such a failure. After all, they even let companies advertise in schools in return for funding, as they cannot provide adequate funding for many schools. Many of the things they give out [the companies] are lies or twisted truths. For example, there was an example in which Procter and Gamble gave funding to schools in return to pass out pamphlets containing information about them and their products. Some of the text read "Procter & Gamble's products do not harm the environment". BS. Other companies force kids to watch a set amount of advertising daily from X company that pays them. I know Coca-Cola did this. It's so sad. These schools should be some of the best in the world. But they aren't. The only schools that usually provide any decent education are private schools and colleges. :mad:




~Bynary Fission

[RVL]

There's also another reason for America's failing public schools, actually... I remember a year ago I heard on the radio only 50% of public school students graduated from high school.

Also, there's a thread about rap music being a bad influence on children. I understand not everyone listens or cares about it, I dont, but many children have been influenced by rap, please look at the quote below.

I do think that rap music (specific rap music, of course, not all) enforces a VERY negative stereotype about successful black people.

Rap artists and sports stars are the most predominant examples of rich black people. By virtue of their position, they are idolized by kids. What do they teach, though? Being successful includes lots of drugs, lots of money, lots of sex, and lots of violence. Engaging in that violence and even getting murdered is honorable to rap music. The rappers frequently live their songs, thus encouraging younger people to do the same.

What's the result? Widespread use of ebonics and otherwise horrible grammar, widespread lack of respect for authority, almost no family values (what's the ratio of black single mothers to married parents again?), and a striking disparity in violent crime rates.
The people who have all those problems? Embodying rap music. That's tantamount to success.

There's a serious problem with recursion in the black community. Whom do kids have to idolize? The upstanding, successful black men and women like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? No, they're deemed "not black" by the black community! Bill Cosby is berated and discredited when he tries to suggest that the status of black culture is in a troubled spot, and that other black people are to blame for it! Sports stars? Okay, you've got your Michael Jordans and others in there who try to make a difference and do, but you also have the Kobe Bryant rapists and the Michael Irvin druggies and whoremongers.
Then you have the rap stars, who are a huge part of the black community as a whole. These people are, for the most part, societal vortices. They spiral down and away from anything that is sensible, decent, or worth encouraging and bring down anyone around them, too.

And these are the people who are idolized. Those kids who successfully live the rapper life only continue to reinforce the stereotype that successfull black people are thuggish, sex-craved, and have no respect for authority or education.

On my bolded words, younger people seem to live with the rap music, so as a side effect, they use horrible spelling and grammar because they are influenced by rap/hip hop. This could be another reason why the students in high schools are like "Yo wussup homies" because the rappers usually act like that, and they frequently swear. These kids influenced by rappers seem to care more about having a gang and making a rap group than having a good education.

EDIT: Haha I found my notice on the floor and it stated that in my region the supervisor of the public schools were taking away an elementary school and redistricting 7 schools. Increased Lunch prices, activity prices, and transportation rides will take place next school year. It even stated the school's budget was really low. Also, the notice said that this type of movement will damage Elementary school programs, which aren't that important but it is still quite horrible.

[Bynary Fission]

Rap music is a bad influence, and to a severe degree I might add. I know this from personal experience, and I'll tell you why. Listen to this. In 8th grade (Last year), I went to a magnet school. It was a school with it's basis on Aerospace/Aviation and technology. But it presided in a ghetto filled with mostly Mexican and Hispanic people, followed by blacks. The school's race distribution was a staggering 70% Hispanic and 15% black. The rest was white, Asian, and other. And let me tell you...8 out of every 10 kids I knew listened to gangster rap and hip-hop. And it showed. The kids at my school were extremely vulgar, easily angered, violent, and many were failing at school. Some did drugs. This was even present in the predominately white Magnet population there (The Magnet kids are the special group of kids that applied to go there and utilize the special programs there, and to get in you had to have a few requirements, like a 2.5 GPA or higher). Mainstream rap does idolize all of the aforementioned things. I have listened to a little myself, to see what it was like. It was torture. I have failed to understand how ANYbody likes it..though I can see why they like it.

But rap is not the only thing that is dragging schools down. In fact, I'm not sure rap actually has that significant of a role in failure and dropout rates (Though I'd love to see a statistic showing the correlation. I'm not doubting it exists, I'd just like to see one), but the trash on TV helps demotivate our kids, and lets not forget the excessive video games, s*itty teachers, and overall lack of motivation. The problem has been allowed to grow and fester for many, many years. The problem will not be easy to fix, nor will it be swift. But if we don't stop now, we may soon cross the Point of No Return.




~Bynary Fission

[Relambrien]

And let me tell you...8 out of every 10 kids I knew listened to gangster rap and hip-hop. And it showed. The kids at my school were extremely vulgar, easily angered, violent, and many were failing at school. Some did drugs. This was even present in the predominately white Magnet population there.


This is true pretty much anywhere, as far as I know. The majority of students in my area, which has an ethnic distribution similar to the national average, are similar to what you describe. It seems like a greater percentage of black students listen to rap than white students, but both numbers are quite high. Drugs are common (a good number of students at my school, which is a charter school, do drugs), people in public schools tend to fail classes, etc.

What I'm curious about is whether rap followed or lead the American culture. Did people turn to rap because students were getting, in general, more violent/vulgar/etc? Or did the trend appear because students turned to rap?

[andili]

I remember 2 years ago, I was in a school filled with students that fought a lot and get pregnant before they finish middle school. I'm Asian, there were only 5 other kids that are Asian and 3% white (they already adjusted them selves the culture there) the rest are mostly Black and Hispanic. Before I moved there, I was in a "well-mannered" and organized school; this school in contrast had laziest and stupidest people I’ve ever met. The first time I witnessed a fight, I cried immediately after I got home, I just couldn’t handle the huge adjustment. I’ve never in my life seen people fight so seriously, especially when more people started ganging up against one person. I do not hate people that listen to rap, it’s their choice, and after being there for a while I actually listened to some R&B myself. Kids in the school I’m attending right now also listens to rap/ R&B, but they are willing to learn.
As for the classes, the teachers doesn’t even take a good look at my tests, they just give me 100% on everything. Seriously, if the teachers had been more responsible things would improve at least a tiny bit. I remembered once the English teacher showed a video about high school violence, the scene where the kids fought; the entire English class got out of their seats and cheered! The teacher doesn’t even stop the video and say something. They hardly think before they act, they are also very straightforward. If they liked someone, they would tell him or her right away. One kid became obsessed, he followed me to the girl’s bathroom, then later he went on my bus and looked for where I live. Doesn’t he know that was way overboard? The students have reached to a point where the answers are right on the board, and they still needed help.
It really depends on the area, the school I’m attending now has Hispanic and Black people as well, but they are very mature and understand how to handle situations instead of using violence.