Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Proclaims US High Schools Obsolete
bryan sent us a story about Bill Gates' take on US High Schools. He says
'America's high schools are obsolete. By obsolete, I don't just mean that they're broken, flawed or underfunded, though a case could be made for every one of those points. By obsolete, I mean our high schools even when they're working as designed cannot teach all our students what they need to know today.'"
That's just "broken". Something is obsolete when it is superseded by a superior alternative. I'd be very happy if current high schools were obsolete- it would mean the kids had somewhere else to go that would give them a better education. Sadly this is not the case, so "obsolete" is incorrect.
Interestingly, Asian education is extremely exam-oriented. We are not forced to do tests daily, or anything of the sort, but we only study material that is related to our syllabus, on which we are examined.
However, the difference as I see it, is that the entire educational structure is planned to teach everything needed to prepare students for tertiary education. As such, the tests are only used to measure a student's performance.
The US education system seems to only have copied the testing procedures of the rest of the world, without understanding how or why it works.
"The most blunt assessment came from Microsoft chief Bill Gates, who has put more than $700 million into reducing the size of high school classes through the foundation formed by him and his wife, Melinda. He said high schools must be redesigned to prepare every student for college"
Hmmm. So Bill, what of the say twenty percent of the population who just aren't going to be able to make the grades to get into college? The left hand side of the bell curve so to speak.
Used to be that those folks would train for a trade or even go to work for a manufacturer or similar employer where loyalty and hard work would make up for a lesser intelligence.
Whoops - those jobs have been shipped offshore.
What of the twenty percent of the population who might have good enough grades to get into a college, but who can't afford the tuition or the loans? Sure some folks can work two jobs and attend college full time, but that's not possible for every student in the country.
Bill, before offering half baked solutions to the "education problem" try to think of one that takes all of these people into consideration.
Three Squirrels
I agree somewhat but we must tread carefully if we are going to overhaul things. Your main point seems to be an objection to any classes that were not 'relevant' to your area of specialization. I'll admit that there were classes that I hated because I was not interested in the topic and I objected to surrendering my time and energy to some idiot professor who could demand work from a captive audience. However, some of my fondest memories are of general education classes in literature, philosophy, and history.
There is a danger that people will miss these useful general ed classes if we track kids into a specialty too early. I have a friend who was tracked into math and computer science in the British education system. From age 16 onwards he never took any class that was not 'relavant' to specialized match and computer science. He missed all of those experiences I loved in taking some general ed as a more mature 21 or 22 year old. I also think it is limiting and mistaken to track kids too early because a lot of kids simply are not mature enough to choose a track when they are still teenagers. I was a late bloomer. I did not choose computer science until I was 20. If I was too deeply tracked at 16 I would have been wrong and miserable.
Our education system must produce thoughtful and contemplative adults. I think there are a lot of people that just want universities to crank out trained worker bees at age 22.
Maybe you should have gone to a tech-school instead of college. A university is not a vocational school. Computer science, for instance, is the science of computation. At its best it is essentially applied mathematics. However, many people think that it is Java/C# vocational training. Herein lies the problem. Universities should be teaching people to be well-rounded in their knowledge and be able to apply diverse areas of knowledge to solve problems. Notice the trend over the last decade or so to multidisciplinary programs, such as bioinformatics. However, most undergrads resist being well-rounded and just want to 'get a job' after graduating. Maybe they should be going to tech-schools rather than universities. Then maybe universities could stop wasting their time training employees and concentrate on training problem solvers.
Long live Schrodinger's cat...
HS education in US is a JOKE!
Yup, it seems instead of doing things like teaching kids material hard or not it's more about being reassuring and making the kiddies feel good. Don't like math, makes you feel stupid? We'll make it easier.
Then on top of that teachers have had their teeth extracted in the class room. Parents don't care and when you say their children are basically disruptive idiots (said better than that of course) the teacher gets called out because little Jonny's an angel. I have a friend who teached in the inner city for years, and she said it was terrible because you couldn't do a thing to stop the kids from doing what ever they wanted; even in gradeschool. Call their parents, you get met with disinterest or screaming, spank the kid at school and you get fired/sued.
To me a lot of the school's problems are much deeper than just the material (which is dumbed down to the nth degree, heck, I read a 2nd grade primer from the 1800s once and there questions I had a hard time answering in it) being taught, I think there's a problem in society. But don't tell parents or kids they have a problem, you might make them feel bad...
I believe the problem is that *everyone* should have the chance to go to college, but that those who are not interrested should still be able to find gainful employment through a vocation.
The University, by and large, has suffered both in academic excellence and rigour because of this idiotic idea that everybody should go to college.
I used to think it was hugely unfair, that in Germany students are separated into high and low schools at the fifth grade (or so). After years of school myself, and 9 years in the IT field it is apparent that many people are not going for their dream job out of the fear living a substandard existance on minimum wage.
The truth be told, there are more millionaire plumbers than there are Computer Scientists.
How many people love their jobs? The inverted order of society to produce lawyers, computer specialists, doctors, et cetera has created a population of dissatisfied people. Additionally, those who are relegated to "lower ranks" in society feel cheated or failure simply because they didn't accomplish the "gold standard."
If we're serious about improving education I really think that the child's interrest should dictate their career path. The education system should grow around this. Parents should support and challenge their children to achieve their goals.
-Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
I guess that depends on what you think the goal of an education system should be. Is it about more than turning everyone into a productive worker? I think so.
I live in the UK, so my education was fairly general in secondary school (aged 11-16), more specialised in the sixth form (16-18) and then entirely specialised at university (18-21 in my case).
During the secondary stage, I studied not only the fields of maths and science in which I'd later choose to specialise, but also history, English, modern languages, Latin (actually one of the most useful classes I took, notwithstanding the subject matter being "a little outdated"), art, craft, music, and more. This gave me a level of general background knowledge about the world, and an appreciation of what my peers were studying later on. I've found speaking several languages to at least a basic conversational level useful on any number of occasions since, so it's hardly redundant knowledge, either.
During the sixth form, I started focussing on maths, physics and chemistry. This level is the hardest to categorise in the UK; much of the material is beyond what an everyday person would need to know of, say, maths, and the focus is more on preparation for studying a related degree than anything else. It's interesting in its own right as well, of course, even if I never use the knowledge of chemistry I gained there in a job.
Once I got to university, I specialised in maths, and later CS. This was obviously very academic, yet is directly relevant to my chosen profession. Even then, though, it's important to separate this academic training from vocational training. A university course shouldn't be teaching specific tools and today's buzzword techniques, it should be teaching (a) the general knowledge needed to appreciate those tools and techniques, and (b) how to study independently, so you can learn the details of specific areas by yourself later.
It's often said around here that a good programmer can learn a new programming language in a few days, and there's at least an element of truth in that. More importantly, in ten years' time, someone with a good background in the theory and the drive and ability to study independently will still be keeping up with new tools and new buzzwords, while the Java McDegree holders will be wondering what this new language is for, and waiting to be spoon fed over-priced training materials by the commercial entities behind it.
Given what the IT industry has been doing to CS courses in recent years, essentially reducing them to vocational qualifications in buzzword subjects, they are clearly interested in propagating the use of newbie programmers at cheap rates for a few years, then trading them in (firing them) when they get too expense and hiring more cheap newbies instead. From a business perspective, this makes for a pretty good "software construction line", but you're losing the essential higher level of quality, both by neglecting proper training and by giving up your more experienced assets. Ultimately, that sort of behaviour leads to inefficient development processes (one skilled and experienced developer can easily be more productive than three newbies who each cost a quarter as much) and loss of quality (witness the declining performance and security of many modern software projects for obvious examples).
So thanks Bill, but I'd rather you didn't try to convert the rest of secondary education into vocational training from age 10. The education system is there to develop people as human beings and cultivate their skills and interests. There will be plenty of time to learn job skills on the job; save the education system for more important things.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.