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.'"
Hey for once Bill Gates and I actually agree. HS was fun and I did enjoy a select few classes but for the most part everything else was a waste of time generally designed to prepare students for the years ahead. Not a bad idea in theory, but for those who are already prepared and are actually interested in learning...HS life can be somewhat lacking.
In my opinion college was even worse. Here I am paying thousands of dollars per semester for the same "I'm a kid, beat on me until I can handle Real Life." stuff. I loaded up 18 credits every semester like an eager naive person only to discover 3 (1 class) of those 18 had any relevance whatsoever to my area of specialization. Once in a while another class would act as a supporting class, but more often than not the rest was just filler designed to keep me busy for a few hours every day. The result? After about 3 years of this I was sick of it...I could barely stomach a fourth. I was tired of seeing my money--earned by working--being spent on some idiot teaching an Economics class who readily admit his sole purpose at that university was to make our lives as difficult as possible and possibly actually teach something relevant to the course.
Looking back, I still feel it was a total waste of money. It made my life so miserable I didn't even have time to stop and enjoy the "college life" that many say makes it all worthwhile. It's my money, I should be able to spend it as I please...not to have someone tell me that I have to waste it on filler courses rather than something of actual use and interest to me.
In the end? I discovered I enjoyed the life of employment much more. All those years of having some teacher/professor telling me how hard life is and how clueless and naive all us students were. Truth be told, I learned most of what I use in the workplace either on the job or on my own. Not to mention I was no longer paying my boss to allow me the privilege to work--I was finally being paid to be there!
As a recent former High School student, I concur. They spent so much time trying to prepare us to take a test, they didn't stop to think that maybe they should prepare us in general, and design a test that would -- test -- us. We seriously had a class everyday that was nothing but practice testing for the FCAT.
Teaching to educate the students became a lesser priority. Teaching what we needed to pass a test so the school could get a good grade, that is what happened -- and still occuring. Out of the day, at least two hours of it is being spent teaching students nothing but what is on a test. Every single day.
I feel like complaining to someone.
Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
The first interesting post in this story, that might actually lead to some intelligent discussion... thank you.
Why SHOULDN'T schools train kids to work in factories/IT? (really, I wouldn't differentiate too much between the two).
No matter how much we might dislike it, someone has to work in factories and in all the "low" jobs. The only feasible social hierarchy IS a pyramid; anything else just wouldn't work.
IMO, what makes the difference between a good system and a bad system is how flexible that pyramid is. Something like Brave New World, where your place in the pyramid is determined at birth, is bad. Something where anyone can move up (or down) to the best of their ability is good. The tricky part is defining "the best of their ability"... is it how smart they were born? (and no, all people are NOT born equal). Is it how well their parents planned for their future? Is it how wealthy their parents are?
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
That's not exactly how I'd describe being a public high-school teacher (cushy and well-paid?).
"to be drones" is exactly what our public education system is designed to do: fill kids heads with so much trivia masquerading as "knowledge" that they don't see the value in learning any more, so much relativism that they'll settle with the simplest answer anyone gives, and so much "self-esteem" that they don't believe they need to know anything. They get to be highly-suggestive ignorant adults who are satisfied with a ho-hum existence and wouldn't know how to rock the boat if it ever occurred to them to try. It was set up that way to create a complacent citizenry that could be herded like cattle.
(Yes, I'm meaning to exaggerate, but there's some truth to it)
From TFA:
The problem here is that, in my own experience, a lot of instructors in public schools today confuse a challenging course that induces critical thinking and development of analytical and practical skills with a course that throws large amounts of busywork at students. I attended 3 high schools, one was Punahou Academy, one was Carlisle High School, and one was Patch High School. The first, being an exclusive private school, also had the most challenging curriculum, and the most creative teachers who. The second had the most busywork, and the least creative teachers. The last had a fair blend of both busywork and critical thinking, but leaned towards the truly challenging side.
These three schools stood at disparate places on the funding scale. Punahou charges a high tuition for their students, and pays their teachers wonderfully, enough to attract even those who hold PhDs. Patch was second on the list, being funded by the Department of Defense for teaching overseas military kids. Their benies were good and their pay-scale was fairly high relative to States-side schools. Carlisle was an underfunded school, where there just wasn't enough money to attract enough teachers who could deal with turning around undermotivated kids.
It's been my experience that there's a high correlation between money available to finance schools and the quality of education. Money and availability of resources attracts motivated people. I'm not saying that the public school systems should be expected to pay out what Punahou does to attract bright teachers, but when garbage-men (sorry, "sanitation engineers") make more than teachers, it's not surprising that a lot of people that end up in public education are undermotivated.
There are lots of other factors that go into schools' quality that money can't solve, but increased money and resources is a good start. Bill apparently appreciates that approach, as well, with his donation of over $700M to the cause.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
1. The US high school system is so obsessed with its democratic origins that it still strives to treat and educate every child the same. This doesn't work. Essentially, we have a system that imposes a K-12 college preperatory mindset on every student that comes through. By this, I mean that we aim to put every kid through Chemistry, Physics, four years of English, Pre-Calculus, etc. Contrast this approach with many foreign systems that break kids off at the 9th or 10th grade equivalent into the kids who want to be in hard-core academics and the kids who need real vocational training. Don't knock vocational training, either; a good auto mechanic or plumber makes more than I do teaching those "academic classes." This "all equal" mindset has placed us in a position where school districts and communities have essentially had to rig up an equivalent to the foreign system; honors and AP/IB classes that actually challenge and teach the "academic minded" ones, and regulars classes that are lax enough to allow the kids through who ordinarily wouldn't ever sit in a chemistry class.
Please don't take my comments up there to imply that everyone should be hard focused on only the courses needed for what they plan to "do." As an English teacher who pushed all the way through Calculus, non-trivial Biology, and some CS courses at the Uni, I appreciate the idea of learning for learning's sake. I also recognize that there are huge amounts of people out there who don't.
2) We've gotten "dumber." This is where the root of most of our problems begin. Go look at an application for any university. They have a section where they state their minimum SAT requirements for admission. For a University that has set their minimum requirement at 1100 (for example), there will be a fine print that reads, "or 1030 for tests prior to 1994." Why? Well, the ideal for the SAT is that the average score is 1000. Unfortunately, around the late 80's and early 90's, the scores started declining more than a normal deviation could account for. The average was closer to 920. So the SAT was made "easier." Somewhere between the 70's and the 90's, we all collectively lost an intelligence level that our prior generation had.
I see it all day long in the school system. Homework is a lesser priority; I can't even assign an out-of-class reading, because it won't get done and my lesson the next day will be worthless. Academic journals targetted at teachers have articles on how to create alternatives to homework that will actually get done, which is something I highly doubt they broached in the 70's. Standards have to be lowered; if I were to fail the number of kids who really need to fail, I'd be out of a job. And don't even get me started on the priority athletics and similar extracurriculars take over academics, or the paltry sum (and respect) given to educators in this country.
Take your normal standardized test complaint. Yes, they take away from class time. Yes, I use learning time to prep for these things. But they aren't really all that difficult, and it's hard to argue against any claim that they cover things you should already have discussed in the classroom (in most cases). I have no doubt that a 1970's era classroom, poor or no, could tackle an English or Math standardized exam with less preparation than an '05 classroom would need, and still score better. We really are "dumber" than the prior generation (I say "we" here because I am part of this group).
There are hundreds of theories on why this is the case. I'm not going to pretend that I can explain any of them. Parental involvement is lower with the severe proliferation of two-income households. The burgeoning American obsession with consumer debt both drives the previous issue and misleads students into thinking that a $25K/year job in their late 20's will allow them to have an Escalade and a nice house. The disrespect of education and school in general is an ingrained part of our culture. We are one of the few school systems worlwide t
I know this will sound like an advertisement. But if you are a parent, you MUST read some of Mel Levine's work. He's a pediatrician whose sole work is to encourage and teach children how to maximize their learning based on their aptitude. If I can explain the gist of his beliefs, he believes the school systems today are too reliant on performance based on standardized tests; parents are too hung up on "college prep" when they should be stuck on teaching their children "life prep;" and there is no such thing as "well-roundedness" (by packing a child's schedule with unneeded even detrimental extracurricular activities) and he labels it "mental obesity."
Each child is wired differently and it's the schools job to identify how the child is wired and to approach their teaching according to how the child learns, rather than sticking with the current monolithic system that essentially espouses the "one size fits all" model. As a parent it is imperative that you learn how your child learns and foster that. He believes that the current system is one of the reasons why there are so many children returning home from college, "living in the basement," with nary an idea of what to do with their lives or what steps to take next because all their lives, decisions were made for them.
One thing that he advocates quite vocally is that children should read more biographies. His reasoning is that if they are interested in a certain field, biographies give a glimpse of the "untold" aspects of the career that is often overlooked, like office politics and the social involvements required in certain careers.
His two most popular books:
A Mind at a Time
Ready or Not, Here Life Comes
You can also learn more about his organization All Kinds of Minds online.
Also, for a quick "intro" of his program, you can hear an online interview with him by Susan Page at the Diane Rehm Show. He talks about everything from the current school system to the increasing diagnoses of ADHD among children.
Linux at home
My two cents...
For me college is nothing more than a money-sucking machine. I am just one of its many cogs. As a freshman in college studying Computer Science, who has/is taken/taking 3xx-4xx CS courses, I find college to be a complete waste of my time. Correction - I find the "gened" classes to me a complete waste of my time. I think I better explain myself.
I love my CS classes. They are interesting, exciting and at my level (3xx-4xx courses) are quite challenging. I love my mathematics classes (currently taking 3xx level mathematics course in Linear Algebra). What I _don't_ like is being forced to waste my time every day doing assignments for fluff classes that I can't avoid. Look - there is nothing wrong with making sure you can still form coherent sentences. However, having 5-6 10-page assignments is pushing the boat a bit, considering I am NOT aiming for an English major, m'kay? Next - social sciences. Many of you will naturally respond in a condescending tone that 'these course will expand your mind.' I call bullshit. Having reviewed the course catalog, I have seen nothing of worth to expand my mind with. The list of courses from which I have to pick ranges from "Psych 101" to "feminism study." I think I can live without any of this shit. If only the courses offered actually EXPANDED my horizons by allowing me to indulge in say... Norse mythology or history of Astronomy, or an in-depth analysis of Dante's Inferno, OR A STUDY OF A FOREIGN LANGUAGE. But no. Study of a foreign culture's language is not a viable option for fulfilling the "cultural development" requirement of graduation, yet studying the plight of [insert-favorite-oppressed-group] is. A non sequitur at its finest.
To repeat a point already addressed by others in this discussion, I should state that I am PAYING these sons-of-a-bitches to waste my time and make my life miserable. This is coming out of my own pocket. I see the value of having a broad education, but "study of feminism and gender issues" and other similar redundant crap is NOT going to expand my mind. The classes that will give me a broad outlook on life - such as study of foreign languages (and I mean _study_, not the cursory, slanted and biased overview of some miniscule topic pertaining to some culture), mathematics (the Lin. Alg. course I am taking is not part of my fard. requirement, and thus is for my own enlightment only), history of major cultures in the past millenia and not of some minor occurance within the past 25 years, etc.
What the hell happened to the "trivium" and the "quadrivium" - the REAL liberal arts, as opposed to the crap forced down our throats that will simply make us clueless cogs, ready to be exploited by the system, instead of thinking sensible adults??
When I was in elementary school (DODDS [Department of Defense Dependant Schooling]), we didn't have enough students to spread them out evenly for all of the grades. Twice, I was placed into a mixed-year class.
For some things, the whole class interacted with each other (reading time, recess, etc). But for much of the day, the teacher would teach one grade, while the other group did their classwork assignments. That time might've been otherwise been used by the teacher to grade papers -- but she didn't grade quizzes, tests, homework, or classwork -- the class did.
She would collect up all of our work, mix them up, and hand them back to the class, and give us red pens. If anyone got their own page, we had to trade with whoever was next to us. She'd read out the answers, and we'd mark them, and sign our name as the grader. She'd collect them, and do spot checks to make sure we didn't mess up. [someone could also complain if they were unfairly marked].
Now, in today's high schools, there are chances at people cheating -- spot checks can help, and if you find something was consistently boosting grades, you have it impact their grade negatively. Some folks might complain that kids might make fun of the others who don't get high grades -- yes, there's that chance [we actually had the opposite -- I remember getting teased for getting good grades], but there's also the possibility that if there isn't so much anomynity that kids will have reason to work harder.
I admit, this won't work for essay questions and longer reports, but there is no reason for teachers to be taking home stacks of papers to grade every night. Sure, they might mean well, and be dedicated to their job, but it's like anything -- work smarter, not harder.
I admit, I'm not a teacher, but I do have a few friends who are teachers, and occassionally drop by my highschool, more than 10 years later. [I actually gave a talk, when I accidentally dropped in on the day they were covering 'The Internet' and 'Search Engines'] -- it seems to me that the problem isn't so much the size, but problems with such a heterogeneous mix of students. Some students are solitary learners, some learn by example, some are very visual, some like story context, and some have to learn by doing.
It might be possible to take the same idea above (more than one 'class', but instead of seperating by age -- seperate by learning style. [I'm not sure which would be easier to handle, and this would probably need some tests run to validate the idea]
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Imagine if we ever taught students to actually think about history, literature, or economics rather than making sure that they memorized the answers for the test?
What if we really encouraged students to ask the primary questions of philosophy before introducing them to the ideas of philosophers:
Metaphysics: "What is the nature of things?"
Aesthetics: "What is the nature of Beauty?"
Ethics: "What is the nature of Good?"
In essence what if we really taught our students to think rather than to be good test-passing machines?
What if we actually had professionals come in and explain to algegra classes why algebra is so useful and how they use it? And what if we told more young women about the likes of Grace Hopper and Augusta Ada Byron? Would we not inspire children to learn more about the world around them?
My son is now 14 months old, and I keep thinking more and more about how to prepare for his eventual schooling and make sure he can think and approach matters of substance.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"Gates is absolutely right. I found that out in my first college year."
I went through a similar thing myself, but I have one thing to amend Gates' assertion about. high schools aren't obsolete, schools are obsolete, but it's because of money.
The district that I work for splits elementary kids into three groups, with two of these groups being the majority. These are normal learners, slow learners, and gifted learners. Most of the kids are in the normal category, a measurable chunk are in the slow category, and a very small number are in the gifted category. Schools are not supposed to have more than 9% of their students in special education. They're probably not supposed to have more than that in the gifted programs either. This means that they're supposed to have at least 82% of students in common curriculum, even if the student excels beyond the class or struggles, but not struggles to the point of qualifying for intervention. This leaves kids at both ends of the spectrum of normal not getting the education that they are truly capable of.
If I were the all-powerful person in charge of everything, I'd split groups up a lot more distinctly, and by subject. I'd have four or five levels, with the current normal range being three distinct levels. There would be extremely bright, "I have to learn this for one day and then I have it down pat" kids, "Give me a compressed unit and I'll have it perfect" kids, "Teach me at the previous normal pace and I'll have it" kids, "Give it to me with more basics and combine it with other exercises to reinforce it" kids, and "I need special assistance because I'm not able to keep up" kids. Broken down by subject, a student would be kept in with a smaller peer group for each subject, and the pace of learning could let the student reach to their potential, rather than being held back because they're just sitting there.
This costs money. This requires home support. Where I work, both are strongly lacking. We get $5,600 per kid per year to teach them, and that has to pay for everything from the classroom teacher to the new tires for the lawnmower.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
But in Bill's defense, he did three years at Harvard, which is a much better education than you'd get by graduating from most other schools.
That is such a misnomer. I was part of a team in college that went to a national database compition where the studens were anywhere from small-private schools to large state ones and Harvard was by far the worst. The cost of tuition and mystique of Harvard has much more to do with the connections you make and thereby, it opens alot doors for you. The in class education is by no means extraordinary.