The Future of Education - ReRolled Solves Problems

Tuco_sl said:

oblig oatmeal post about columbus:Christopher Columbus was awful (but this other guy was not) - The Oatmeal

Click to expand...

Wow, what an asshole.

Fyro_sl said:

Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves, how many of us would have actually made it into the advanced placement courses/track if we would have been tested in late middle school with a make it/break it test.

I know perfectly well that I was an animal in middle school, there is no way I would have passed a test, I would not have gone on to college, I would not be where I am today. I do not think these tests are the way to go.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The test isn't there to prove you learned the material. That's secondary. With the amount of studying they do in SK, learning the material well is a given. They'd have learned it with a fifth of that effort.

The purpose of the test is to determine which students are smart/hardworking enough to deserve a high place in society. That's why there is so much obsessive studying, its not about learning it's about proving you're better than everyone else. That test is basically the 98% students getting relegated into the dregs while the 99.5% students get the good jobs.

If some kids say fuck it, it has done its job of identifying who the losers are.

My experiences were different in school. My first problem was in middle school, there were HUGE overlaps in what was being taught. 6-8th grade was the Holocaust in history class every year. 6th and 7th social studies was just memorizing states/countries and capitals.

I was interested in the holocaust, learned a bunch. Even at that age I didn't find the need to know where every state/country was on the map. Guess what, I did what I had to do to past test but don't remember the information now.

Then there was math. I was identified to be gifted in math in 4th grade. I was put in advanced math etc, in 5th grade I was doing algebra and geometry. So then 6th grade, middle school comes around, guess what, I'm doing pre algebra. I get ultra bored and barely pass that class, and then do algebra and geometry the same way. I learned it was easier to be the best of your class, then show you were smarter than everyone and move up. The only thing that was fun was the timed tests we took where you'd improve your own score. It was me and 2 other kids competing really and we'd be crushing the rest of the class by at least double the amount of problems solved etc.

Then in middleschool and highschool I had science. Hated it, learned about trees, dirt, volcanos etc. Barely passed any science class I ever took. This I find very funny because now for my career etc, I can't get enough of science. I literally live to read research papers on everything aquatic.

The one thing that I take away from all of my schooling that I deemed worth it? PE and marketing classes. Playing the stock game, running the highschool student store, learning about credit cards etc. I ended up graduating with marketing honors. Best thing I ever did. I also really enjoyed woodshop in middle school and home ec.

Now here is how you solve schooling. Make it fun and let kids choose what they want. Basically you combine homeschooling with social interaction. Every home schooled kid I meet is a level headed genius. And at the same time is a social retard. All the subjects I did "bad" in at school were subjects I was genuinely not interested in. Anything I liked, I would crush the shit out of that subject.

I'd love to see a structure where all the classes each day were electives. Sign up for what you're interested in. So many guys in my highschool would be basically druggy drop outs, except for shop class, where they got half their day in shop. They were 105% dedicated to that class because it meant something to them.

What about english, math etc? These will be taught/learned via subjects they are interested in. But what if they don't learn english? Look at your work place, you probably have adults there where they only learned to speak english in the last 5 years and can do the job better than half your co-workers. We have plenty of people coming out of highschool illiterate basically. Why not at least let them learn something useful while they do their time as opposed to ignoring learning all together.

To the teachers who say they make great lessons and kids don't want to learn etc. Your right, they don't want to learn your lesson. Make every class optional, and those in your class will want to do your lesson plan.

From a long-time post-secondary student: the classes that I dominated the most in were the ones that had audio-visual pre-recordings of the lecture material that you could download; one professor took it to the next level by changing lectures into an interactive tutorial in order to reinforce the material in the recording. Not everyone learns the same way and I learned the most from these courses and, if I become a professor, I plan follow in those professor's footsteps.

Interesting article:

My Daughter's Homework Is Killing Me - Karl Taro Greenfeld - The Atlantic


Kids, young adults, adults need more time "playing", imho. We're hellbent on beating creativity out of children to appease the invisible test taking gods.

If you want to know what state governments are taking a hard look at, visit Coursera or Udacity. I can absolutely promise you that more money and attention is being heaped on MOOC-style classroom experiences at the postsecondary level than any other option. There are a lot of factors driving the push, not least of which is the private sector pushing technology platforms to support learning, but the simple fact is that state budgets aren't what they used to be. Public universities used to be genuinely public, and the lion's share of their operating budget came from state tax receipts. I'm talking 60-80%. These days, less than half of a university's budget is supported through taxes.

Ultimately, the budget issue frames all of this. Universities are incredibly expensive enterprises, and falling state support means rising tuition costs for students. This is not a matter of greed. Universities are cutting to the bone all over the country to try and keep tuition under control, but you eventually reach a point where programs cannot be further cut. That's why states are so excited by MOOCs. They're an opportunity to divest education of the dorms, the campuses, the facility management, the commuter needs, etc. and focus on just the learning. I am not optimistic that this format will truly work for everyone, but if it broadens the accessibility of education then it's worth giving it a try. The whole point is to make things more affordable across the board: for the student *and* the college.

Desire really is the issue, imo. I saw it in classmates, I saw it in myself. I wasn't the smartest kid in my class, but I certainly wasn't the dumbest either. My problem was a complete lack of motivation and no sense of what I wanted to do with the education I was getting. Also the inability for schools to cater (however much a pipe dream that is) to my own interests didn't help.

There needs to be some kind of system that engages those interests kids have. Be it just one period a day, fuck, a week, that allows the student to learn about things they might want to do and what it takes to do get there. It might be what's needed to motivate them to take the rest of their education seriously.

Heylel_sl said:

If you want to know what state governments are taking a hard look at, visit Coursera or Udacity. I can absolutely promise you that more money and attention is being heaped on MOOC-style classroom experiences at the postsecondary level than any other option. There are a lot of factors driving the push, not least of which is the private sector pushing technology platforms to support learning, but the simple fact is that state budgets aren't what they used to be. Public universities used to be genuinely public, and the lion's share of their operating budget came from state tax receipts. I'm talking 60-80%. These days, less than half of a university's budget is supported through taxes.

Ultimately, the budget issue frames all of this. Universities are incredibly expensive enterprises, and falling state support means rising tuition costs for students. This is not a matter of greed. Universities are cutting to the bone all over the country to try and keep tuition under control, but you eventually reach a point where programs cannot be further cut. That's why states are so excited by MOOCs. They're an opportunity to divest education of the dorms, the campuses, the facility management, the commuter needs, etc. and focus on just the learning. I am not optimistic that this format will truly work for everyone, but if it broadens the accessibility of education then it's worth giving it a try. The whole point is to make things more affordable across the board: for the student *and* the college.

Click to expand...

As someone that's been getting heavily involved in MOOCs, I can say that until the techniques and technology get better, they're only going to be able to supplement in-classroom learning, not replace it. And even then, I don't think there's ever going to be a true replacement to the in-person, student-teacher relationship.