This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
To not debate with Boron anymore.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
It was a metaphor.
It was a bad one.
Thanks, sheesh..
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Instead of just telling him it was a bad metaphor, how about you give him suggestions as to what a better metaphor would have been?
Post by
Azazel
And then we have to accept it unless we can come up with something better. :P
Post by
MyTie
Let's stop the in fighting and get back on topic. Elhonna, I'm really interested in hearing what you think of my % cut off idea.
Post by
Azazel
I was joking. But I think cutting off a % just because everybody isn't at the exact same level is pretty harsh. What if you're say, dyslexic? Dyslexia usually makes it a lot harder to learn stuff. Would they just be "thrown out"?
Post by
MyTie
I was joking. But I think cutting off a % just because everybody isn't at the exact same level is pretty harsh. What if you're say, dyslexic? Dyslexia usually makes it a lot harder to learn stuff. Would they just be "thrown out"?
I'm not saying get rid of special education. I think some classes and schools are better for certain people than others. That is why I included the class and school transfer before booting idea. Try to get someone to fit into school as best they can. However, if you can't get someone into a position where they are benefiting from school, then I find that compelling that they shouldn't be in school. Harsh? Yeah, but I think it is intuitive to the problem, and would be beneficial overall.
Post by
gamerunknown
I think the issue is that if 25% of students drop out a year every year for nine years, a class starting with 100 students would have 12 graduating. There'd be problems associated with children not receiving adequate educations to compete in a global economy along with the fact that school acts as a form of surrogate day-care.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Let's stop the in fighting and get back on topic. Elhonna, I'm really interested in hearing what you think of my % cut off idea.
Honestly- I think it's a horrible idea. Taking 1/4 of the population and removing them from the only education they have is the exact opposite of what we need. I don't think it would drive people who don't care to suddenly care. I think it would make it harder to prove someone violated posted rules about trespassing and street signs because you could no longer assume that almost everyone could read. I think you'd have a huge slow-down and drain on public services because they could no longer just say "Fill out this form and come back-" they'd have to accommodate the 1/4 of the population that needed it read to them. You's also severely gimp the workforce because you'd have a pool of untrained labor who couldn't read memos, would be harder to hot to legally binding contracts, couldn't perform basic retail functions like counting back change or reading a computer to know what the inventory is.
Post by
Azazel
But how would you feel if you were thrown down in the lower schools? A project like this was done in Denmark a few years ago where they divided a class by intelligence. The people on the "bad" side felt even worse, because what did it matter if they tried harder? They'd "lost the game" anyway.
It was done with the same intention as you describe above, letting people with problems have teachers specialized in it and people without problems have the normal teachers. So that they can all learn more. But what's the incentive to reach for the top, if your arms would never reach?
Not to mention the after-effects, like the guys above me made. The world would be even more stupid than it already is.
Post by
MyTie
I think the issue is that if 25% of students drop out a year every year for nine years, a class starting with 100 students would have 12 graduating.Uhm... that is if there is never any students put into the school. I'd say 25% of all additional population taken off the bottom of the total population might be better. What do you think? There'd be problems associated with children not receiving adequate educations to compete in a global economyThey weren't in the first place. That was the problem. along with the fact that school acts as a form of surrogate day-care.
This isn't government responsibility, to provide enormously expensive childcare on the backs of taxpayers. This is parental responsibilities, which, is what I've been talking about for a few pages now.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Let's stop the in fighting and get back on topic. Elhonna, I'm really interested in hearing what you think of my % cut off idea.
Honestly- I think it's a horrible idea. Taking 1/4 of the population and removing them from the only education they have is the exact opposite of what we need. I don't think it would drive people who don't care to suddenly care. I think it would make it harder to prove someone violated posted rules about trespassing and street signs because you could no longer assume that almost everyone could read. I think you'd have a huge slow-down and drain on public services because they could no longer just say "Fill out this form and come back-" they'd have to accommodate the 1/4 of the population that needed it read to them. You's also severely gimp the workforce because you'd have a pool of untrained labor who couldn't read memos, would be harder to hot to legally binding contracts, couldn't perform basic retail functions like counting back change or reading a computer to know what the inventory is.
What if this were instituted only in High School?But how would you feel if you were thrown down in the lower schools? A project like this was done in Denmark a few years ago where they divided a class by intelligence. The people on the "bad" side felt even worse, because what did it matter if they tried harder? They'd "lost the game" anyway.
It was done with the same intention as you describe above, letting people with problems have teachers specialized in it and people without problems have the normal teachers. So that they can all learn more. But what's the incentive to reach for the top, if your arms will never be long enough?
I'm not interested in how they "feel". You don't half a mountain climbing class when half the class has no arms, just to make them feel better. And I'm not saying divide the class. I'm saying kick the kids out of the education process who are failing the education process the worst.
Post by
Azazel
But how would you feel if you were thrown down in the lower schools? A project like this was done in Denmark a few years ago where they divided a class by intelligence. The people on the "bad" side felt even worse, because what did it matter if they tried harder? They'd "lost the game" anyway.
It was done with the same intention as you describe above, letting people with problems have teachers specialized in it and people without problems have the normal teachers. So that they can all learn more. But what's the incentive to reach for the top, if your arms will never be long enough?
I'm not interested in how they "feel". You don't half a mountain climbing class when half the class has no arms, just to make them feel better. And I'm not saying divide the class. I'm saying kick the kids out of the education process who are failing the education process the worst.
Well, you did say you were cynical.. :P
Post by
MyTie
As a courtesy, I'm offering you this polite reminder that I don't wish to continue discussing this with you. Please keep that in mind when replying to my posts.
Post by
MyTie
Well, you did say you were cynical.. :P
One of my better qualities.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@MyTie- I still don't think it's appropriate. I think that in order for society to function, we need to give people a certain "base" of knowledge. I think that writing someone off forever because at 13, or 14, or 15 their grades aren't great is not doing us any favors. Learning 50% of what they're taught is better than them being taught nothing. I think it would make for a large section of the population that functions at a lower level than they do now.
And besides, if they get kicked out, then what? They get to stay home all day and play video games- they're too young to work, and don't really have any marketable skills now anyway. To what young teenager does staying home and playing video games all day rather going to school sound like something to be avoided or feared? It's not like their parents will stop working to make sure they aren't having fun all day at home. I don't think the kids are mature enough to be making life decisions at that age, and I don't think that the parents who don't want to put forth the effort to make the behave in school will be put off by the idea that the school will tell them they don't have to put forth any effort anymore- they can just let the kid stay home.
Post by
MyTie
I'd say at least 25% of the population can't do long division, doesn't know anything about politics, and is just good for surplus labor anyway. I think these kids can learn trades, instead of math, science, etc. We could set up schools to teach kids plumbing, or woodworking, or metalworking... teach them everything they need to know about a certain skill with their hands. I'm not saying they are garbage, but I'm saying that they don't get out of higher education anything. In fact, if we had "hands on" schools, I'd say kick even more than 25% of population into it... I'd say 30% or more. Let only those who really really want to work for it go for higher education. Teach other kids stuff that will contribute to society, and make it stuff they can learn.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.